(Global Issues in Water Policy 10) Debesh Chakraborty, Kakali Mukhopadhyay (auth.)-Water Pollution and Abatement Policy in India_ A Study from an Economic Perspective-Springer Netherlands (2014).pdf

Global Issues in Water Policy 10
DebeshChakraborty
KakaliMukhopadhyay
Water Pollution
and Abatement
Policy in India
A Study from an Economic Perspective
Water Pollution and Abatement Policy in India
GLOBAL ISSUES IN WATER POLICY

VOLUME 10
Series Editors
Ariel Dinar
Jos Albiac Murillo
Stefano Farolfi
Abel Mejia
Rathinasamy Maria Saleth
For further volumes:

http://www.springer.com/series/8877
Debesh Chakraborty Kakali Mukhopadhyay
Water Pollution and

Abatement Policy in India
A Study from an Economic Perspective
Debesh Chakraborty
Department of Economics
Jadavpur University
Calcutta, West Bengal
India
Kakali Mukhopadhyay
Department of Natural Resource Sciences
Agricultural Economics Program
McGill University
Quebec
Canada
ISSN 2211-0631
ISSN 2211-0658 (electronic)
ISBN 978-94-017-8928-8
ISBN 978-94-017-8929-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-8929-5
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014941879
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts
in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being
entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication
of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the
Publishers location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from
Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center.
Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Foreword
Shortly before the publication of this book, Professor Debesh Chakraborty, the
renowned academician, internationally acclaimed economist, and, most importantly, the main author of this book, passed away after a short illness. Having
meticulously worked on the proofreading of this manuscript, Professor
Chakraborty, however, did not have the opportunity to see the printed volume.
His inspiration and guidance saw me through every line of this book, and I dedicate
this book to the memory of him.
Professor Chakraborty was a faculty at the department of Economics, Jadavpur
University, Calcutta, India, for more than three decades. He began his academic
career as a postdoctoral researcher at New York University with Nobel Laureate
Prof. W.W. Leontief, a distinction that shaped him into one of the pioneers and
forerunners of multisector quantitative research in Applied Economics and Inputoutput modeling in India. He will be remembered for developing emerging areas of
research with special focus on Application of the InputOutput framework, Global
CGE model, and Applied Quantitative Techniques in Economics. He was, without
any doubt, one of the most renowned and most thoughtful academicians in the field
of Input-Output Economics.
Professor Chakraborty coauthored several books and leaves behind more than
100 publications in various peer-reviewed journals. He had contributed extensively
to the analysis of multisectoral models and was one of the early researchers in that
field in India. His works have been widely cited, setting the trend for many young
researchers in that field. Always on the lookout for research on fundamental and
emerging issues, he continued his engagement in supervising Ph.D. students and
directed large research projects even after his retirement. Twenty-three scholars
earned their doctoral degrees under his supervision in diverse fields in economics.
Professor Chakraborty was attached as a fellow or visiting fellow to various
universities and institutions such as UNESCAP in Bangkok, New York University
in the USA, Tilburg University and MERIT-Maastricht University in the Netherlands, the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, the Korea Institute of
Population and Family Planning in South Korea, the University of Newcastle in the
vi
Foreword
UK, Oulu University in Finland, and the Department of Agricultural Economics,

McGill University, Canada.
He possessed the rare personality that could blend academics with real issues of
our daily life to develop a vision for societal progress at large. A keen observer with
a sharp intellect and empathy for the common man, he befriended people from all
walks of life. Above all, he was a wonderful human being who always gave his best
to his students, friends, and colleagues. I will forever remember a man with such
deep commitment to academics and society and love for equality and balance. It is
hard to believe that such a vigorous human presence is no more.
With great sadness,
Kakali Mukhopadhyay
Preface
The growing ecosystem degradation around the world is affecting the vast population especially the poor in developing countries who often depend solely on
ecosystem services. Water is one of the most fundamental natural resources and
is vital to the survival of all living organisms and smooth functioning of ecosystem
and society. Decades of rapid industrialization, urbanization, and agricultural
development have resulted in lifestyles that increase the demands on water
resources along with dramatic increases in water pollution levels. Polluting wastewater from industrial discharges is one of the main causes of ecosystem degradation. Apart from industrial wastewater, agrochemicals, fertilizers, organic manure,
and nutrient solution pollute water significantly when they enter into the water
through rains. Water pollution is one of the main reasons behind a decline in
freshwater reserves. Polluted water has adverse effects on both environment and
health. Water pollution has been increasing in alarming proportions over time, and
this needs immediate attention and calls for appropriate measures.
Traditionally, India has been well endowed with large freshwater reserves but
increasing population, urbanization, and agricultural growth are leading to
overexploitation of surface and groundwater over the past few decades. Thus, the
availability and the quality of the freshwater resources is the most pressing of the
many environmental challenges India is facing today. Growth of the Indian economy is driving increased water usage across sectors. On the other hand, wastewater
amount is increasing significantly and, in the absence of proper measures for
treatment and management, is polluting existing freshwater reserves. As a result,
water pollution has emerged as one of the gravest environmental threats to India. In
this backdrop, the current study makes a comprehensive analysis of water pollution
in India.
A significant number of industries such as livestocks, chemical industries,
beverages, leather, cotton textiles, miscellaneous textile, paper, pesticides, milk,
and milk products in India are producing water pollution above MINAS by several
times. We have also seen that a number of industries are controlling water pollution.
Since pollution abatement activities involve cost, they affect the price and output of
different industries.
vii
viii
Preface
The current book attempts to develop an inputoutput model to link water

pollution generated by different industries with various economic activities of the
Indian economy. It constructs a detailed water pollution coefficient matrix involving different types of water pollutants and estimates the total amount of water
pollution generation directly and indirectly from different sectors/activities of
India. The analysis of the effect of pollution abatement scheme shows that the
demand for sectoral output will change and so also the price of the different sectors
of the economy. We find that chemical, mining, and electricity are key sectors
which have extensive linkages in the demand for clean water.
Further, the study derives an interesting finding from the water pollution content
in trade. India is exporting more water pollution-intensive goods, while importing
less. So India is pollution heaven particularly for a number of water pollution
parameters such as dissolved solids, chloride, sulfide, BOD, and COD for the
years 20062007.
The book also offers a portfolio of pollution abatement policies and evaluates the
implications of such policies on pollution generation in the economy. Analysis
reveals that water pollution-generating sectors such as inorganic and organic
chemicals, mining, sugar, and cotton textile will grow rapidly and therefore also
the clean water sector. The study calculates the water pollution load at the end of the
12th five-year plan. Furthermore, the study accounts for defensive expenditure
arising from water pollution and estimates Green GDP of India for the year
20062007. We have applied various scenarios to estimate the loss in GDP due
to water pollution and related activities. The loss accounted for GDP varies
according to scenarios ranging from 3.50 to 3.91 %.
There is a controversy regarding the setting up of CETP/or ETP plant in India.
An assessment has been made in the book through different case studies across
different states in India. The findings on West Bengal reveal that measures to
control water pollutants by setting up Environmental Treatment Plant (ETP) in
five industries have been successful. The experiences from leather industry in North
and South India show a similar result. Both of them have used CETP to control
water pollution. On the other hand, a typical cluster of pulp and paper industry in
Northern India shows the feasibility of ETP compared to CETP.
The book suggests that the foremost attempt should be made to achieve clean
water and for that technological improvement is a must. Increase in research and
development expenditure has to be taken by the different industries and the
government involving scientists, social scientists, and technologists. The book
has also analyzed the possibility of using economic instruments and command
and control policies for the abatement of water pollution. It concludes that the use
of economic instruments together with existing command and control approaches
will bring great benefit.
We hope this effort will make a modest contribution to solving the water
pollution problem of a developing country like India and provide some direction
for abatement policies. It presents a thorough review of water pollution generation
from different sectors of the Indian economy and the impact of abatement policies.
The book integrates macroeconomic and microeconomic approach on a single
Preface
ix
platform, a rare attempt in the literature on water pollution in India. The book will
help policy makers, researchers, and the world bodies like ADB, World Bank,
UNEP, IWMI, and Water Research Institutes derive policies and pursue further
research for thorough investigation. In addition, the central pollution control board
and various state pollution control boards of India will also find the book useful.
Thus, the book will be a good addition to the field of water pollution in developing
countries particularly in Asia.
18.11.2013
Debesh Chakraborty
Kakali Mukhopadhyay
ThiS is a FM Blank Page
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express sincere thanks to the officials and staffs of the
Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi, West Bengal Pollution Control Board,
Calcutta, and Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi, for their cooperation in
using the library facilities. Thanks are also due to Prof. Paul Thomassin (McGill
University) for his constant encouragement.
The authors are greatly indebted to the Howard Gumilang (Researcher, McGill
University) for his continuous help. The authors are also thankful to Dr. Paramita
Dasgupta (Ananda Nagar College, West Bengal) for her assistance in chapter 6.
This book would not have appeared without the support and facilities provided by
McGill University in general, and Department of Natural Resource Sciences,
Agricultural Economics Program, in particular.
xi
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1
Environment and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2
Water Pollution and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1
Health Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3
Water Pollution in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4
Water Resources of India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.1
Water Resources: Availability and Consumption
in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.2
Freshwater Scenario in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5
Overuse and Misuse of Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.6
A Brief Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.7
Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.8
Arrangement of the Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
3
7
7
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
10
12
12
16
17
18
Status of Water Pollution in India and Other Countries of Asia . . .

2.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1
Agricultural Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2
Industrial Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2
Status of Water Pollution in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1
Wastewater Production and Treatment . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2
Legislations and Policies for Water Pollution
in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3
Policy Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3
Status of Water Pollution in Other Countries in Asia . . . . . . . .
2.3.1
Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.3
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.4
Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.5
The Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.6
Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
23
26
26
27
30
31
32
34
34
35
35
36
37
38
xiii
xiv
Contents
2.3.7
2.3.8
2.3.9
2.3.10
2.3.11
References . .
Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.........................................
39
39
40
41
41
43
The Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1
The Basic InputOutput Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2
Model I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1
Pollution Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3
Model II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1
Model II A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2
Model II B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
51
Data Sources and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1
InputOutput Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2
Water Pollution Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1
Derivation of Different Types of Water Pollutants . . .
4.3
Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1
Abatement Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2
Abatement Cost in Summary Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4
Limitation of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 4.A.1: Aggregation Scheme of the InputOutput
Table of 20062007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
53
53
55
71
73
92
94
Experiment with Models: Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.1
Results on Direct and Indirect Water Pollution Requirement . . .
5.2
Total Amount of Pollution in Total Final Demand and Its
Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3
Effects of Pollution Abatement Cost on Output . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4
Effects of Pollution Abatement Cost on Prices . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 5.A.1: Direct Water Pollution Output Coefficients
(Thousand Tons Discharged per Lakh Rupees of
Output at 20062007 Price) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 5.A.2: Total (Direct and Indirect) Water Pollution
Output Coefficients (Thousand Tons of Pollutants Directly and
Indirectly Discharged per Lakh Rupees Worth of Sales of Each
Industries to Final Demand) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 5.A.3: Total Water Pollution Content of the
Total Final Demand of Different Sectors of India for the
Years 20062007 (Figures in Thousand Tons per Lakh
Rupees of Final Demand) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
101
101
95
97
106
109
110
112
112
114
116
Contents
Estimation of Water Pollution Content in Indias

Foreign Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1
Trade and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2
Trend and Pattern of Foreign Trade in India . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.1
Pollution Haven Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.2
Factor Endowment Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4
Analysis of the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.1
Pollution Haven Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.2
Factor Endowment Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5
Implication of the Findings on Trade and Environment
Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 6.A.1: Water Pollution Generated from Exported
Commodities (Thousand Tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 6.A.2: Water Pollution Generated from Imported
Commodities (Thousand Tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xv
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 132
. 134
. 134
. 136
. 138
Simulation Exercises on Water Pollution Abatement Policies . . . .

7.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2
Interventions to Control Water Pollution in India . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.1
Laws for Controlling Water Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.2
Fiscal Instruments for Pollution Control . . . . . . . . . .
7.3
Alternative Water Pollution Abatement Policies and Impact . . .
7.3.1
Scenario 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.2
Scenario 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.4
Effects on Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5
Water Pollution and 12th Five-Year Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.6
Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 7.A.1: Sector Wise Pollution Generated for
Ten Pollutants in the Year 20162017 (Scenario 1) . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Estimates of Green GDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2
A Brief Review on Resource Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.3
Different Categories of Adjustments to the National
Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.4
Environmental Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119
119
123
125
125
126
128
129
129
141
141
142
142
144
145
146
148
150
152
154
157
157
159
161
163
. 165
. 165
. 166
. 169
. 169
xvi
Contents
8.4.1
Health Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.4.2
Damages to Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.4.3
Defensive Expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5
Environmentally Adjusted National Accounting . . . . . . . . . .
8.6
The Contribution of the Environment to Economic
Performance and Welfare Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.7
Environmentally Adjusted Domestic Product with Respect
to Pollution Control Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.7.1
Simulated EDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
10
.
.
.
.
. 179
. 180
. 180
. 186
Review of the Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2
Case Studies of West Bengal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.1
A Brief Discussion of the Industries Surveyed . . . . . .
9.2.2
Determination of Water Quality Indices (WQI)
of Wastewater of Five Industries in West Bengal . . . .
9.2.3
Evaluation of Setting Up of Effluent Treatment Plant
in Five Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.4
Assessment of Effluent Treatment Plants in West
Bengal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3
Other Case Studies in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3.1
A Case Study of Textile Industry in Pali, Rajasthan . . .
9.3.2
Case Study of Textile Industry in Tirupur and Karur,
Tamil Nadu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3.3
Sugar Industry in Maharashtra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3.4
Pulp and Paper Industries in Northern India . . . . . . . .
9.3.5
A Case Study on Tannery in Uttar Pradesh . . . . . . . .
9.3.6
A Case Study on Tannery at Pammal in Tamil Nadu . . .
9.3.7
A Case Study on Tannery in North Arcot District,
Tamil Nadu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3.8
Experiences from Common Effluent Treatment
Plants in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.1 Water Pollution Abatement Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.1.1
Recent Initiatives by MOEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.1.2
Other Policy Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
170
171
173
174
.
.
.
.
.
189
189
190
190
197
207
217
218
219
219
220
221
224
226
228
229
232
235
242
242
244
246
Appendix A: Extended Input Output Table Including the Clean

Water Sector for the Year 20062007
(Figures are in Lakh Rupees) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1
Fig. 5.1
Fig. 5.2
Fig. 5.3
Fig. 5.4
Fig. 6.1
The environmental Kuznets curve: a developmentenvironment

relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Direct coefficients of COD for important sectors (thousands tons
of COD per lakh rupees of output for the year 20062007) . . . . . . .
Direct coefficients of BOD for important sectors (thousands tons
of BOD per lakh rupees of output for the year 20062007) . . . . . . .
Direct coefficients of SS for important sectors (thousands tons
of SS per lakh rupees of output for the year 20062007) . . . . . . . . . .
Direct coefficients of DS for important sectors (thousands tons
of DS per lakh rupees of output for the year 20062007) . . . . . . . . . .
Indias commodity trade pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
103
103
104
104
124
xvii
List of Tables
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
Water resources of India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Total water availability and consumption of water resources of
India for the year 20062007 (figures in lakh rupees) . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Wastewater generation and treatment in Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
BOD emissions in selected developing countries in Asia
(kg/day) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Sectoral share of BOD emissions in selected countries
in 2006 (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Wastewater treatment capacity in urban areas
in India in 2008 .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . 31
Status of pollution control and defaulters in highly polluting
industries under the program of industrial pollution control
in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Penalty provisions . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . 33
List of the sectors for the year 20062007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Volume of the different types of water pollutants across industries
in India during 20062007 (thousand tons) . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 56
Total volume of pollutants for agriculture
sector (thousand tons) . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 58
Rate of pollution from processing units of cashew nut . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Average generation of water pollutants from the dairy plant
in India (mg/L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Water pollution from milk and milk products in 20062007
(thousand tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Rubber products in metric tons (20042005) . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . 61
Generation of wastewater from rubber products (L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Types of water pollutant from rubber product (mg/L) .. . .. . .. . .. . 61
Generation of wastewater estimation from coffee production
plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
xix
xx
Table 4.11
Table 4.12
Table 4.13
Table 4.14
Table 4.15
Table 4.16
Table 4.17
Table 4.18
Table 4.19
Table 4.20
Table 4.21
Table 4.22
Table 4.23
Table 4.24
Table 4.25
Table 4.26
Table 4.27
Table 4.28
Table 4.29
Table 4.30
Table 4.31
Table 4.32
Table 4.33
Table 4.34
Table 4.35
Table 4.36
Table 4.37
Table 4.38
List of Tables
Water pollution from coffee processing

and cultivation (mg/L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structure of Indias textile production in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wastewater generation from cotton textile production
in 20062007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water pollutants from cotton textile plant (mg/L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water quality from Serampore silk-screen plant (mg/L) . . . . . . . . .
Water pollutant parameters from sugar plant in India . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water pollutant parameters from pulp and paper
plant in India . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .
Rate of water quality from iron ore processing plant in India
(mg/L) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
Water use and wastewater generation in oil refineries
through cooling system and recirculation cooling system . .. . . .. .
Characteristics of raw effluent in oil refineries (mg/L) . . . . . . . . . . .
Rate of water pollutant release from oil refinery (t/day) . . . . . . . . .
Typical rates for water use for various food processing
industries . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
Typical values of BOD5 and COD for different food plant
wastewaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Abatement cost data for the selected industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total operation and maintenance cost for cotton textile . . . . . . . . .
Components of operation and maintenance cost for two
different estimates of textile plant by CPCB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Three estimates of operation and maintenance cost for cotton
textile plant in 20062007 (lakh Rs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operation and capital cost for three different techniques for
milk and milk products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operation and maintenance cost for milk and milk products
for three technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Components of operation and maintenance cost for milk
and milk products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Waste generation in slaughter house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Waste process treatment cost for slaughter house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Components of operation and maintenance cost for livestock
sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ratio of operating cost of different items in food processing
plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total operation and maintenance cost in food processing
sector (lakh Rs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total operation and maintenance cost for sugar sector . . . . . . . . . . .
Different components under operation and maintenance cost
for alcohol plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total operational and maintenance cost for beverage sector
in India (Rs. lakh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
65
65
65
66
67
67
68
68
69
69
70
70
74
76
76
76
78
79
79
79
79
80
81
81
82
83
83
List of Tables
Table 4.39
Table 4.40
Table 4.41
Table 4.42
Table 4.43
Table 4.44
Table 4.45
Table 4.46
Table 4.47
Table 4.48
Table 4.49
Table 4.50
Table 4.51
Table 4.52
Table 4.53
Table 4.54
Table 4.55
Table 4.56
Table 4.57
Table 4.58
Table 4.59
Table 4.60
Table 4.61
xxi
Operating cost of effluent treatment plant of HLL (Rs.) . . . . . . . . . 84

Components of operating cost of effluent treatment
plant of HLL . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . 84
Components of operating cost of effluent treatment plant
of coffee processing and beverages (Rs. lakh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Operation and maintenance cost for leather effluent plant of
Jajmau and Unnao (million Rs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Components of operation and maintenance cost of effluent
treatment plant of leather and leather products (Rs. lakh) . . . . . . . 85
Cost structure of effluent plant of a typical paint
industry in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Total operation and maintenance cost of effluent treatment
plant of paints industry (Rs. lakh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
A typical effluent treatment plant of M/S Ashoka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Allocation of operation and maintenance cost for rubber and
rubber products (Rs. lakh) . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . 87
Components of operation and maintenance cost for jute,
hemp, and mesta textile (Rs. lakh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Allocation of operation and maintenance cost for
miscellaneous textile plant (Rs. lakh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Performance of ETP installed at OCS (oil collecting station),
M/s. Oil India Ltd. (mg/L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Performance of ETP installed at Lakwa GGS, M/s. ONGC
(mg/L) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 89
Total operation and maintenance cost for effluent treatment
plant of ONGC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Allocation of operation and maintenance cost for oil
and gas effluent (Rs. lakh) .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . 89
Water pollution load generated from dye stuffs industries in
India (before treatment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
ETP capital cost for different units of dye and dye
intermediates in India (Rs. lakh) . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . 91
Total operation and maintenance cost of organic
and inorganic chemicals sector in India . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . 91
Operation and maintenance cost for a typical plant
of inorganic and organic chemicals and its components . . . . . . . . . 91
Allocation of operation and maintenance cost of
inorganic and organic chemicals sector in India for
20062007 (Rs. lakh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Total operation and maintenance cost and its allocation for
other chemicals sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Pollution abatement cost of different industries in India
for the year 20062007 (Rs. lakh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Share of different categories of operation and maintenance cost of
different industries in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
xxii
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 5.6
Table 5.7
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
Table 7.6
Table 7.7
Table 7.8
Table 7.9
List of Tables
Total coefficients of BOD and COD for selected sectors (thousand

tons of pollutants directly and indirectly discharged per lakh
rupees of output for the year 20062007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Total coefficients of SS and DS for selected sectors
(thousand tons of pollutants directly and indirectly
discharged per lakh rupees of output for the
year 20062007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Total amount of different water pollutant contents in final
demand and its component of India for the year 20062007
(figures in 000 tons per lakh rupees of final demand) . . . . . . . . . . 107
Effects of pollution control cost on output of different
goods and services (lakh rupees) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Impact on output by different categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Effects of pollution control cost on prices of different goods
and services (lakh rupees) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Impact on prices by different categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Indias top five trading partners 2011 (billion US$) . . . .. . . .. . .. . 124
Pollution terms of trade for ten water pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Sectoral export and import share in India for the year
20062007 (%) . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . 131
Factors embodied in one million dollars worth of export
and import replacements in Indias trade with the ROW
20062007 (using Leontief method) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Factor content and trade revealed factor abundance in
Indias trade with the ROW 20062007 (using Leamer
approach) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Effect of pollution abatement cost policies on output
(scenario 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
List of sectors classified based on percentage effects
on output . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 148
Effect of pollution abatement cost policies on prices
(scenario 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
on prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Effect of pollution abatement cost policies on output
(scenario 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
on output . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 152
Effect of pollution abatement cost policies on prices
(scenario 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
on prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Annual growth of sectoral output based on three scenarios
in 20162017 . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . 155
List of Tables
Table 7.10
Table 7.11
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3
Table 8.4
Table 8.5
Table 8.6
Table 8.7
Table 9.1
Table 9.2
Table 9.3
Table 9.4
Table 9.5
Table 9.6
Table 9.7
Table 9.8
Table 9.9
Table 9.10
Table 9.11
Table 9.12
Table 9.13
xxiii
List of sectors classified based on percentage growth

of output under three scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water pollution under three scenarios in 20162017
(thousand tons) . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
SEEA flow and stock accounts with environmental assets . . . . .
Case 1: Environmentally adjusted national accounting
of India for the year 20062007 (in lakh Rs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case 2: Environmentally adjusted national accounting
of India for the year 20062007 (in lakh Rs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simulation exercise 1 (Case 1): Environmentally adjusted
national accounting of India for the year 20062007
(in lakh Rs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(in lakh Rs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(in lakh Rs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simulation exercise 2 (Case 2): Simulated environmentally
adjusted national accounting of India for the year 20062007
(in lakh Rs.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A brief description about five industries in West Bengal . . . . . . .
Characteristics of untreated water of Eastern Spinning
Mills & India Ltd (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of treated water of Eastern Spinning
Mills & India Ltd (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of untreated wastewater of Samson
Processing Industries (19992000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of treated wastewater of Samson
Processing Industries (19992000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of untreated wastewater of Jenson
& Nicholson (I) Ltd (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of treated wastewater of Jenson
& Nicholson (I) Ltd (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of untreated wastewater of Pharmaceutical
Industry (Infar India Ltd.) (19992000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of treated wastewater of Pharmaceutical
Industry (Infar India Ltd.) (19992000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of untreated wastewater of East India
Pharmaceuticals (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
Characteristics of treated wastewater of East India
Pharmaceuticals (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water resources classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Determination of WQI of untreated wastewater, Eastern
Spinning Mills & India Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
156
157
175
177
178
182
183
184
185
191
193
193
194
194
195
195
196
196
197
198
199
200
xxiv
Table 9.14
Table 9.15
Table 9.16
Table 9.17
Table 9.18
Table 9.19
Table 9.20
Table 9.21
Table 9.22
Table 9.23
Table 9.24
Table 9.25
Table 9.26
Table 9.27
Table 9.28
Table 9.29
Table 9.30
Table 9.31
Table 9.32
Table 9.33
Table 9.34
Table 9.35
List of Tables
Determination of WQI of treated wastewater, Eastern

Spinning Mills & India Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Determination of WQI of treated wastewater, Samson
Processing Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Determination of WQI of untreated wastewater, Infar India
Pharmaceuticals . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .
Determination of WQI of treated wastewater, Infar India
Determination of WQI of untreated wastewater, East India
Determination of WQI of treated wastewater, East India
Calculated values of WQI of treated and untreated
wastewater of five industries of West Bengal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction cost of Samson Processing Industries
(19981999) .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
Operation cost of Samson Processing
Industries (20002001) . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .
Benefitcost ratio of Samson Processing Industries
for different percentage values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction cost of Jenson and Nicholson
(I) Ltd. (19951996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operation cost of Jenson and Nicholson
(I) Ltd. (19992000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Benefitcost ratio of Jenson and Nicholson (I) Ltd.
Construction cost of Pharmaceutical Industry
[Infar India Ltd] (19981999) . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .
Operation cost of Pharmaceutical Industry [Infar India Ltd]
(20002001) .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
Benefitcost ratio of Pharmaceutical Industry
(Infar India Ltd.) (20002001) for different percentage
values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction cost of East India Pharmaceutical
(19951996) .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
Operation cost of East India Pharmaceutical (19992000) . . . . .
Benefitcost ratio of East India Pharmaceutical for
different percentage values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction cost of Eastern Spinning Mills of
India, Ltd. (19931994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operation cost of Eastern Spinning Mills of India, Ltd.
(19992000) .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
Benefitcost ratio of Eastern Spinning Mills of India, Ltd.
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
208
209
210
211
212
213
213
213
214
215
215
216
216
217
List of Tables
Table 9.36
Table 9.37
xxv
Values of IRR, BCR, and PBP for five effluent treatment

plants in West Bengal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Typical characteristics of water and wastewater from
four different categories of pulp and paper industries . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
Environment and Development
The international conference held in Sweden in 1972 emphasized strongly the

interdependence between environment and development issues. In 1980, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), the
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) stressed the linkage between conservation and development.
In 1983, the Brandt Commission also focused on this relationship. As a result of
recommendations from the Stockholm Conference and Brandt Commission, the
World Commission on Environment and Development produced a valuable report
Our Common Future in 1987(WCED 1987). The term sustainable development
started to figure in the global community discussion. The first Earth Summit in 1992
and other subsequent summits such as the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and the UN Commission for Sustainable Development addressed the
issues and actions on social, economic, conservation, and resource management
dimensions of the globe.
Is there any link between environment and development? Opinions do differ,
however. The growing economic activity throughout the world requires larger
inputs of energy and material resources and generates larger quantities of waste
by-products (Georgescu-Roegen 1971; Meadows et al. 1972). Increased extraction
of natural resources, accumulation of waste, and concentration of pollutants would
outweigh the carrying capacity of the biosphere leading to the degradation of
environmental quality and a decline in human welfare, despite rising incomes
(Daly 1977). Thus, growth may result in excessive environmental degradation
through the use of natural resources and generation of pollution aggravated by
institutional failures (GOI 2006). Furthermore, the degradation of the resource base
would eventually impact adversely the economic activity. Thus, to save the environment is our primary concern today.
At the other extreme, it is argued that the fastest road to environmental improvement is along the path of economic growth. Higher incomes result in increased
D. Chakraborty and K. Mukhopadhyay, Water Pollution and Abatement Policy in India,
Global Issues in Water Policy 10, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-8929-5_1,
1 Introduction
Pre-industrial
economies
Industrial
economies
Post-industrial
economies
(service economy)
Environmental
degradation
Stages of economic development
Fig. 1.1 The environmental Kuznets curve: a developmentenvironment relationship (Source:

Panayotou 1993)
demand for goods and services that are less material intensive and improved
environmental quality. This would lead to the environmental protection measures.
It is claimed that environmental regulation may actually reduce environmental
quality by reducing economic growth (Bartlett 1994).
Others opined in a different way (e.g., Shafik and Bandyopadhyay (1992),
Panayotou (1993, 1995), Grossman and Kreuger (1993), and Selden and Song
(1994)). They hypothesized that the relationship between economic growth and
environmental degradation, whether positive or negative, is not fixed along a
countrys development path. It may move from positive to negative as a country
reaches a level of income at which people demand a cleaner environment. The
implied inverted-U relationship between environmental degradation and economic
growth is known as the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC). At low levels of
development, both the quantity and the intensity of environmental degradation are
limited to the impacts of subsistence economic activity on the resource base and to
limited quantities of biodegradable wastes. As an economy moves from lower to
higher development path, both resource depletion and waste generation accelerate.
At higher levels of development, structural change takes place towards information
and service-based industries. The demand for environmental quality increases and
ultimately leads to a steady decline of environmental degradation (Panayotou
1993). This is as shown in Fig. 1.1.
Thus, EKC analysis indicates a well-defined relationship between economic
growth and environmental degradation (Dasgupta et al. 2002). It also shows that
economic growth could be compatible in the long run with the environment by
implementing efficient environmental policies (de Bruyn and Heintz 1999; Oneill
et al. 1996; Ezzati et al. 2001; Suri and Chapman 1998).
There are a host of studies relating economic growth and environment across a
number of developing as well as developed countries (Beckerman 1992; Shafik
1994; Selden and Song 1994; Grossman 1995). The most common argument in
these studies is that economic growth in the long run has led to an improvement in
environmental quality in developed countries. Similarly, it is also expected that
1.2 Water Pollution and Development
developing countries can also achieve such environmental quality improvements

once they reach a higher level of per capita income. However, the EKC evidence for
water pollution is mixed. Few studies found an inverted-U-shaped curve for
biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), nitrates, and
some heavy metals (arsenic and cadmium) (Yandle et al. 2002). In most cases, the
income threshold for improving water quality is much lower than the one for
improving air pollution (Yandle et al. 2002). Several authors (Shafik 1994;
Grossman 1995) found evidence of an N-shaped curve for some water quality
indicators like fecal coliform (Borghesi 2000). Paudel et al. (2005) in their study
investigated the EKC on water pollution using parish-level data aggregated to the
watershed level in the state of Louisiana. Their results found the evidence of an
EKC in water pollution. A study by Liu and Chen, for Shenzhen City in China,
found that river water quality follows an inverted-U-shaped curve, but air quality
and the quality of near coastal waters follow a U-shaped curve (Barua and Hubacek
2008).
Thus, the interaction between economic growth and environmental degradation
is one of the most controversial issues in environmental economics. The
environment-growth debate has centered on several questions: robustness and
generality of the relationship and role of other factors, such as population growth,
income distribution, international trade, and ecosystem, and role of policy. As
environmental degradation poses an increasing threat to the prospect of economic
growth and development, environmental considerations are becoming a part of the
overall development policy of every nation.
1.2
Water Pollution and Development
Water, an abiotic component of our environment, plays an indispensable role in our

lives but is one of the most abused resources. As an environmental resource, it is
regenerative in the sense that it could absorb pollution loads up to certain levels
without affecting its quality. In fact, water pollution problem exists only if the
pollution loads exceed the natural regenerative capacity of a water resource. Water
pollution is any physical or chemical change in water that can adversely affect
organisms. Water contamination weakens or destroys natural ecosystems that
support human health, food production, and biodiversity (Chakraborty
et al. 2001; CAG 2011).
Water pollution is caused by a variety of human activities including agriculture, industry, mining, disposal of human waste, population growth, urbanization,
climate change, etc. So it is often rightly said that pollution is a by-product of
regular economic activity (Leontief 1970). Agriculture can cause nutrient and
pesticide contamination where increased salinity and nutrient enrichment has
become one of the most widespread water quality problems of the world. Effluents
of organic and inorganic pollutants from industrial activities are also a major cause
of water quality degradation. Polluting substances include organic matter, metals,
1 Introduction
minerals, sediments of solid wastes, suspended solids, bacteria, toxic chemicals,

acids, and alkali. Pollutants like ammonia, chloride, sulfide, zinc, phenol, phosphate, chromium, sulfate, etc., are also found.
Waterways are often used directly as drinking water sources or connected with
shallow wells used for drinking water. In addition, they are used for washing and
cleaning, fishing and fish farming, and recreation. Another major source of drinking
water is groundwater. This often has low concentrations of pathogens because
water is filtered during its transit through underground layers of sand, clay, or
rocks. Toxic chemicals such as arsenic and fluoride can dissolve from the soil or
rock layers into groundwater. Direct contamination can also occur from badly
designed hazardous waste or industrial sites. Seawater pollution with persistent
chemicals, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins, can also be a
significant source of pollution.
Poor water quality affects livelihoods such as agriculture, fishing, and animal
husbandry. The use of polluted water leads to a decrease in produced quantity as
well as in quality of the crops. It may take two forms: (a) the crops may accumulate
heavy metals or toxic substances dissolved in the wastewater, making them
unsuitable for consumption, and (b) polluted water may affect the level of nutrients
and vitamins the crops would normally have. Further, the polluted water adversely
affects the soil quality that results in reductions in quantity and quality of future
harvests (Cheppi 2012).
Biodiversity, especially of freshwater ecosystems, is under threat due to water
pollution. Runoff from farmland, in addition to carrying soil and sediments that
contribute to increased turbidity, also carries nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphates. These are often added in the form of animal manure or fertilizers. These
chemicals cause eutrophication (excessive nutrient levels in water), which increases
the growth of algae and plants in waterways, leading to an increase in cyanobacteria
(blue-green algae). The toxins released during their decay are harmful to humans.
The use of nitrogen fertilizers can also be a problem in areas where agriculture is
becoming increasingly intensified as they increase the concentration of nitrates in
groundwater, leading to high nitrate levels in underground drinking water sources.
This can then cause methemoglobinemia, the life-threatening blue baby syndrome, in very young children (Yassi et al. 2001). The discharge of heated water
mostly from industries, thermal power plants, and municipal sewage into rivers and
sea causes thermal pollution and damages to aquatic life such as fish, shrimps, or
crabs, thus leading to ecological disturbances of water. There is a possibility of
future loses in fishery production due to reduced reutilization of natural fishery
resources, reduced fertility, and damaged breeding grounds (Cheppi 2012).
The application of pesticides directly on the soil can also create seepage to
groundwater or runoff to surface water. Moreover, the spraying of pesticides from a
distance, even from airplanes, can create a spray drift when the wind carries the
materials to nearby waterways. Efforts to reduce the use of the most toxic and longlasting pesticides in industrial countries have largely been successful, but the rules
for their use in developing countries may be more permissive, and the rules of
1.2 Water Pollution and Development
application may not be known or enforced. Hence, health risks from pesticide water
pollution are higher in such countries (WHO 1990).
In many regions, household sewage disposal often remains untreated as the
absence of proper sewage disposal system and poor maintenance of septic tanks
generate pollution. Sewage contains various types of organic and inorganic matter,
suspended particulate matter, and also different microorganisms which react to
form acids or chemicals compounds. Alkalis and acids create disturbance to the pH
value of the water resource. Extensive use of chemicals in agriculture (in the form
of fertilizers and pesticides), household activities (through use of soaps and detergents), and industries is also the source of groundwater pollution. It is often found
that toxic chemicals and solid wastes from industry effluents, household sewage,
and agricultural fields, when disposed untreated into neighboring water source and
land, mix with rainwater before seeping into and polluting groundwater reservoirs.
Chemicals can enter waterways from either a point or a nonpoint source. Point
source pollution is due to discharges from a single source, such as an industrial site.
Nonpoint source pollution involves many small sources that combine to cause
significant pollution. For instance, the movement of rain or irrigation water over
land picks up pollutants such as fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides and carries
them into rivers, lakes, reservoirs, coastal waters, or groundwater. Another nonpoint source is storm water that collects on roads and eventually reaches rivers or
lakes (Kjellstrom et al. 2006).
Naturally occurring toxic chemicals can also contaminate groundwater, such as
the high metal concentrations in underground water sources in mining areas. The
most extensive problem of this type is the arsenic contamination of groundwater in
Argentina, Bangladesh, Chile, China, India, Mexico, Nepal, Taiwan (China), and
parts of Eastern Europe and the United States (WHO 2001). Fluoride is another
substance that may occur naturally at high concentrations in parts of China, India,
Sri Lanka, Africa, and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Drinking contaminated water is the most direct route of exposure to pollutants in
water. The use of contaminated water in food preparation can result in contaminated food, because high cooking temperatures do not affect the toxicity of most
chemical contaminants. Inhalation exposure to volatile compounds during hot
showers and skin exposure while bathing or using water for recreation are also
potential routes of exposure to water pollutants. Toxic chemicals in water can affect
unborn or young children by crossing the placenta or being ingested through breast
milk. Estimating actual exposure via water involves analyzing the level of the
contaminant in the water consumed and assessing daily water intake (WHO
2003). Biological monitoring using blood or urine samples can be a precise tool
for measuring total exposure from water, food, and air (Yassi et al. 2001).
Water disinfection using chemicals is another source of chemical contamination
of water. Chlorination is currently the most widely practiced and most costeffective method of disinfecting large community water supplies. This success in
disinfecting water supplies has contributed significantly to public health by reducing the transmission of waterborne disease. However, chlorine reacts with naturally
occurring organic matter in water to form potentially toxic chemical compounds,
1 Introduction
known collectively as disinfection by-products (International Agency for Research

on Cancer 2004).
The quality and pollution level of water are generally measured in terms of
concentration or load the rate of occurrence of a substance in an aqueous solution.
BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) measures the strength of an organic waste in
terms of the amount of oxygen consumed (by the microorganism in water) in
breaking it down. This is a standard water treatment test for the presence of organic
pollutants. Moreover, the number of physical and chemical parameters (which
defines the water quality), such as pH, DO (dissolved solids), total solids, and
inorganic trace elements that also need to be monitored for proper assessment of
water quality, is quite large.
Industrial activities are also an important source of water pollution. For example,
paper and pulp mills consume large volumes of water and discharge liquid and solid
waste products into the environment. This liquid waste is usually high in biological
oxygen demand, suspended solids, and chlorinated organic compounds such as
dioxins (World Bank 1999). The storage and transport of the resulting solid waste
(wastewater treatment sludge, lime sludge, and ash) may also contaminate surface
waters. Similarly, sugar mills emit effluent characterized by BOD and SS, and the
effluent is high in ammonium content. Sugarcane rinse liquid may also contain
pesticide residues. Leather tanneries, on the other hand, generate a significant
amount of solid waste, including hide, hair, and sludge, while their wastewater
contains chromium, acids, sulfides, and chlorides. Textile and dye industries are
also associated with liquid effluent that contains toxic residues from the cleaning of
equipment, and waste from petrochemical manufacturing plants contains suspended
solids, oils and grease, phenols, and benzene (World Bank 1999).
Mining is another major source of industrial water pollution. The grinding of
ores and the subsequent processing with water discharge fine silt with toxic metals
into waterways. Lead and zinc ores usually contain the much more toxic cadmium
as a minor component. If the cadmium is not retrieved, major water pollution can
occur. Other metals, such as copper, nickel, and chromium, are considered essential
micronutrients but in high levels can be harmful to health. The presence of copper
in water can also arise due to corrosion of drinking water pipes. High levels of
copper may make water appear bluish green and give it a metallic taste. Flushing
the first water out of the tap can minimize exposure to copper. Similarly, the use of
lead pipes and plumbing fixtures may result in high levels of lead in piped water
(Kjellstrom et al. 2006).
Mercury can enter waterways from mining and industrial premises. Incineration
of medical waste containing broken medical equipment is also a source of environmental contamination with mercury as it is easily transported through the
atmosphere due to its highly volatile nature. Furthermore, sulfate-reducing bacteria
and certain other microorganisms in lake, river, or coastal underwater sediments
can methylate mercury, increasing its toxicity (Murata et al. 2004).
The above discussion shows how the environmental externality is created due to
the use of water resource in various economic activities. These externalities have
also some impact on health.
1.3 Water Pollution in India
1.2.1
Health Effects
Waterborne pollutants kill millions of people worldwide every year, and yet, no
published estimates are available of the global burden of disease resulting from the
overall effects of chemical pollutants in water (Kjellstrom et al. 2006). The burden
in specific local areas may be large, such as arsenic in drinking water in Bangladesh.
Other examples include the nervous system diseases of methylmercury poisoning
(Minamata disease), the kidney and bone diseases of chronic cadmium poisoning
(Itai-itai disease), and the circulatory system diseases of nitrate exposure (methemoglobinemia) and lead exposure (anemia and hypertension) (Murata et al. 2004).
Acute exposure to contaminants in drinking water can cause irritation or inflammation of the eyes and nose, skin, and gastrointestinal system. These adverse health
effects are due to chronic exposure (e.g., liver toxicity) to copper, arsenic, or
chromium in drinking water. Excretion of chemicals affects kidney through toxic
effects such as cadmium, copper, mercury, and chlorobenzene (WHO 2003).
Furthermore, pesticides and other chemical contaminants that enter waterways
through agricultural runoff, storm water drains, and industrial discharges may
persist in the environment for long periods and be transported by water over long
distances. They may disrupt the function of the endocrine system, resulting in
reproductive, developmental, and behavioral problems. The endocrine disruptors
can reduce fertility and increase the occurrence of stillbirths, birth defects, and
hormonally dependent cancers such as breast, testicular, and prostate cancers(WHO
2003).
In addition, solid waste generated by petrochemical processes contains spent
caustic and other hazardous chemicals implicated in cancer. Methylmercury accumulates and concentrates in the food chain and can lead to serious neurological
disease or more subtle functional damage to the nervous system (Murata
et al. 2004). The effects on the developing nervous system can include impaired
mental and psychomotor development, as well as cognitive impairment and behavior abnormalities (WHO and International Programme on Chemical Safety 2002).
Chemicals in drinking water can also be carcinogenic where disinfectant
by-products and arsenic have been a particular concern (International Agency for
Research on Cancer 2004).
1.3
Water Pollution in India
Increased population, rapid industrialization, and unplanned urban growth in India

are resulting in the generation and discharge of large quantities of wastewater into
existing water bodies.
Indias 14 major, 55 minor, and several hundred small rivers receive millions of
liters of sewage, industrial, and agricultural wastes. The most polluting source for
rivers is the city sewage and industrial waste discharge. Presently, only about 10 %
1 Introduction
of the wastewater generated is treated; the rest is discharged as it is into our water
bodies. Due to this, pollutants enter rivers, lakes, and groundwaters (CAG 2011).
A significant number of industries (livestock, oil refineries, coal and lignite,
chemical, distilleries, man-made fiber, paints and dye, leather, textiles, paper,
fertilizers, milk and milk products) in India are producing water pollution several
times above MINAS (minimum national standard) approved by the Pollution
Control Board of India. Agricultural runoff, or the water from the fields that drains
into rivers, is another major water pollutant as it contains fertilizers and pesticides.
Groundwater accounts for nearly 80 % of the rural domestic water needs and 50 %
of the urban water needs in India. It is generally less susceptible to contamination
and pollution when compared to surface water bodies.
Furthermore, India has an inadequate treatment of infrastructure. Only 26.8 % of
domestic and 60 % of industrial wastewater are treated in India. Sometimes the use
of untreated wastewater for irrigation leads to the reduction in agricultural production (e.g., in Hyderabad, wastewater drawn from the river Musi for irrigation has
reduced rice output by 4050 %).1
Discharge of untreated wastewater is leading to increased pollution and depletion of clean water resources. This polluted water, which ultimately ends up in our
households, is often highly contaminated and carries disease-causing microbes.
Health costs incurred owing to water pollution are extremely heavy and sometimes
fatal. Water pollution causes many deaths in India every year. The single largest
cause of ill health and death among children is diarrhea, which kills nearly half a
million children each year in India (WHO and UNICEF 2000). Lack of water,
sanitation, and hygiene results in the loss of 0.4 million lives annually in India
(WHO 2007). Environmental factors contribute to 60 years of ill health per 1,000
population in India compared to 54 in Russia, 37 in Brazil, and 34 in China. The
socioeconomic costs of water pollution are extremely high: 1.5 million children
under 5 years die each year due to water-related diseases, 200 million person days
of work are lost each year, and the country loses about Rs. 366 billion each year due
to water-related diseases (Parikh 2004).
McKenzie and Ray (2004) also observe similar effects of water pollution;
however, the magnitude of the effect was modest. The study shows that India
loses 90 million days a year due to waterborne diseases with production losses
and treatment costs worth Rs. 6 billion. Poor water quality, sanitation, and hygiene
result in the loss of 30.5 million disabilities adjusted life years (DALY) in India.
Groundwater resources in vast tracts of India are contaminated with fluoride and
arsenic. Fluoride problems exist in 150 districts in 17 states in the country, with
Orissa and Rajasthan being the most severely affected. High concentration of
fluoride in drinking water causes fluorosis resulting in weak bones, weak teeth,
and anemia. The presence of arsenic, a poison and a carcinogen, in the groundwater
Sustainable Technology Options for Reuse of Wastewater, Central Pollution Control Board;
Wastewater Management and Reuse for Agriculture and Aquaculture in India, CSE Conference
on Health and Environment 2006.
1.4 Water Resources of India
of the Gangetic delta causes health risks to 3570 million people in West Bengal
and Bihar.
The above analysis presents the water pollution problem and its effect in India.
However, water pollution has not been adequately addressed in any policy in India,
both at the central and at the state levels. In the absence of a specific water pollution
policy which would also incorporate prevention of pollution, treatment of polluted
water, and ecological restoration of polluted water bodies, efforts made by the
government in these areas would not get the required emphasis and thrust
(CAG 2011).
1.4
Water Resources of India
India is rich in water resources, being endowed with a network of rivers and vast
alluvial basins to hold groundwater. Besides, India is blessed with snow cover in the
Himalayan range which can meet a variety of water requirement of the country.
However, with the rapid increase in population and the need to meet the increasing
demands for irrigation, human, and industrial consumption, the available water
resources in many parts of the country are getting depleted and the water quality has
deteriorated. Traditionally, India has been well endowed with large freshwater
reserves, but the increasing population and overexploitation of surface and groundwater over the past few decades have resulted in water scarcity in some regions.
1.4.1
Water Resources: Availability and Consumption

in India
Water resources can be classified into two broad categories, namely, groundwater
resource and surface water resource. The precipitation which does not infiltrate into
the ground forms surface water, while deep percolation of water through soil strata
eventually becomes a part of groundwater.
India accounts for approximately 2.4 % of land area and 4 % of the water
resources of the world but 16 % of the world population (Kaur et al. 2012). It is
difficult to prepare an accurate national picture of Indias water resources because
accurate field data is almost nonexistent. However, the data which are available
have been put together and discussed. The main water resource of India consists of
the precipitation on the Indian Territory which is estimated to be around 4,000 km3/
year and transboundary flows which it receives in its rivers and aquifers from the
upper riparian countries. For the latter, however, no ready quantitative estimate is
available.
Out of the total precipitation, including snowfall, the availability from surface
water and replenishable groundwater is estimated as 1,869 km3. Due to various
10
1 Introduction
Table 1.1 Water resources of India

Estimated annual precipitation (including snowfall)
4,000 km3
Average annual natural flow in rivers and aquifers
1,869 km3
Estimated utilizable water
1,123 km3
1. Surface
690 km3
2. Ground
433 km3
Water demand utilization (for the year 2000)
634 km3a/813 km3b/724 km3c
1. Domestic
42 km3a/56 km3b/49 km3c
2. Irrigation
541 km3a/688 km3b/615 km3c
3. Industry, energy, and others
51 km3a/69 km3b/60 km3c
Source: CWC (2010)
a
Indicates the data for 2000
b
Refers the data for 2010
c
Authors estimates for the year 20062007 from the figure of 2000 and 2010
constraints of topography and uneven distribution of resource over space and time,
the total utilizable water resource in the country has been estimated to be about
1,123 bcm (690 from surface water and 433 from groundwater resources). This is
just 28 % of the water derived from precipitation. Table 1.1 shows the water
resources of the country at a glance. It appears from Table 1.1 that water consumption is only 634 km3 for the year 2000, while for 2010, it increased to 813 km3 by
different sectors of India.
Precipitation over a large part of India is concentrated in the monsoon season
(during June, September, and October). Precipitation varies from 100 mm in the
western part of Rajasthan to over 11,000 mm at Cherrapunji in Meghalaya
(CWC 2010).
1.4.2
Freshwater Scenario in India
The growth of the Indian economy is driving increased water usage across sectors.
Wastewater is increasing significantly, and in the absence of proper measures for
treatment and management, existing freshwater reserves are being polluted.
Increased urbanization is leading to an increase in per capita water consumption
in towns and cities as consumption patterns change, with increased demand for
water-intensive agricultural crops and industrial products.
Table 1.2 shows the distribution of the use of water by different sectors of India
in the year 20062007. Agriculture is the major water-consuming sector in India,
accounting for 70.09 %.
1.4 Water Resources of India
11
Table 1.2 Total water availability and consumption of water resources of India for the year
20062007 (figures in lakh rupees)
1. Total amount of water resource: 117032a + 2,594,660b 3,701,692
2. Consumption of water resources by different sectors
Name of the sector (amount and percentage)
1. Agriculture + irrigation 211 + 2,594,660 2,594,871 (70.09 %)
2. Industry 514,559 (13.90 %)
3. Electricity 22,099 (0.60 %)
4. Domestic 570,163 (15.40 %)
Total 3,701,692 (100 %)
Sources:
(1) CSO (2011), InputOutput Transaction Table 20062007
(2) a InputOutput Table (20062007)
(3) b Actual expenses of Annual Plan 20062007, CWC (2010)
1.4.2.1
Water Consumption in Indian Agriculture
India is one of the worlds leading crop producers. Rice, wheat, and sugarcane
together constitute more than 80 % of Indias crop production and are the most
water-consuming crops in recent years. India has the highest water footprints
among the top rice- and wheat-producing countries.2
Wheat production in India has increased from 72.77 million tons in 20002001
to 86.87 million tons in 20102011, while rice production increased from 93 million
tons in 20012002 to 95.98 in 20102011 and sugarcane production in India has
also increased from 29 million tons to 342.38 million tons in 20102011
(GOI 2011). Over the years, this has led to an increase in water consumption in
the agricultural sector. Consumption of water for irrigation is also rising, which
may lead to the overexploitation of available resources. Virtual water consumed for
the production of wheat, rice, and sugarcane has increased by 88 Tr liters over the
period 20002008 for wheat it increased by 4 Tr liters, for rice it increased by
18 Tr liters, and for sugarcane it increased by 66 Tr liters (Kumar and Jain 2007).
Increased disposable income and urbanization are changing consumption patterns towards more water-intensive products. Indias annual domestic per capita
consumption (kg) of water-intensive products like poultry meat, egg, cotton, and
milk is increasing.
1.4.2.2
Water Consumption by Industries
Industrialization and infrastructure growth are accelerating water consumption and

increased discharge of untreated wastewater.
2
Water footprints of Nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern,
water footprint network.
12
1 Introduction
Steel- and electricity-dependent industries are expected to grow in the coming

years. Investment in infrastructure development is increasing in India. The
manufacturing sector grew at an average of around 8 % between 2000 and 2010.
Thermal power plants, one of the most water-intensive industrial units, constituted
more than 65 % of the installed power capacity in India during 20092010. Finished
steel production in India has increased from 32.3 million tons in 20002001 to
59.69 million tons in 20092010. Electricity generation in India has increased from
499.5 to 796.3 billion Kwh from 20002001 to 20092010 (GOI 20102011). This
industrial growth can explain the increased water consumption followed by
increased wastewater generation from Indian industries.
Industrial wastewater discharge contributes to pollution and reduces available
freshwater reserves. Increase in wastewater discharge is highest from the
agriculture-based industries such as textiles, sugar, and fertilizer. Thermal power
plants and steel plants also contribute to industrial wastewater discharge.
In a developing country like India, the link between water consumption and
wastewater generation across sectors further complicates water management.
1.5
Overuse and Misuse of Water Resources
The wastage of water is large and overuse of water occurs in all activities. It is very
difficult in India to get an estimated wastage of water for different activities.
However, one study has estimated wastage of water in various consumptive uses
(Briz Kishore 1992). Accordingly, in domestic use such as drinking, bathing,
cooking, washing, cleaning, and gardening, about 1625 % of water is overused,
while in industry and workshop about 20 %, commercial establishments 10 %,
transportation including road-rail vehicle and air transport and storage 1525 %,
and public services like government offices, courts, police, etc., 1025 %.
1.6
A Brief Literature Review
Literatures are not numerous. In this section, we shall make a brief review of the
available literature. Several studies have been conducted on water pollution issues
in the emerging economies in Southeast Asia. Muyibi et al. (2008) studied the
impact of development activities on water pollution in Malaysia. The paper examines the trends of development-induced water pollution in the regions of the country
and also indicates the problems and the policy measures taken by the government. It
evaluates the probable causative relationship between problems introduced due to
technology employed in water pollution control and governmental policy measures.
It examines the relationship between development indicators as sources of pollution
and polluted rivers over a period of 12 years. The findings of the paper have shown
that despite the policy enforcement actions against the identified sources of water
1.6 A Brief Literature Review
13
pollution, all development indicators still accounted for high percentage of river
pollution in Malaysia. The study identified some key reasons for the high pollution.
These are (a) the issue of interactive effects between pollutants that many policy
makers are not aware of; (b) the financial constraints to invest in appropriate
technology especially sewerage systems for controlling human source of water
pollution in the country as well as those confronting small polluting industries;
and finally (c) the lack of cooperation between government and private business
firms to comply with regulatory policies for water pollution control.
Resosudarmo (2003) analyzed the data from global environmental monitoring
activities and has shown the alarming environmental conditions in many developing
countries. Environmental policies that could improve the environment significantly,
while at the same time maintaining the growth of economic activities, are needed.
Using an inputoutput analysis, this paper researches such policies with a view to
applying them to Indonesias river water pollution. The study reviews river water
quality and current policies in Indonesia. It also develops future policies to control
such pollution. Okadera et al. (2006) evaluate the structures of water demand and
water pollutant discharge with socioeconomic activities in the city of Chongqing,
the main city upstream of the Three Gorges Dam in China. The study developed a
methodology for estimating water demand and water pollutants (carbon, nitrogen,
and phosphorus) based on an inter-industry analysis model and then applied it to the
city of Chongqing. The study concludes that industry is the largest source of water
demand and water pollutants in the city of Chongqing. Water demand from
agriculture, forestry, and livestock accounts for 35 % of the total, and about 20 %
of water pollutants are discharged from agriculture, forestry, and livestock. Furthermore, water pollutants from households constitute more than 20 % of the total
in the city of Chongqing. In addition, about 20 % of the water demand and water
pollutant discharge in the city of Chongqing is caused by other provinces and
foreign countries, with most of the demand and discharge being industrial.
Recently Kaur et al. (2012), Murty and Kumar (2011), and Barua and Hubacek
(2009) have tried to focus on the problems of water pollution in India. Murty and
Kumar (2011) provide an overview of the extent, impacts, and control of water
pollution in India. They also identify the theoretical and policy issues involved in
the abatement and avoidance of water pollution in India. Kaur et al.(2012)
discussed the wastewater production treatment and use in India. The overall
analysis of water resources indicates that in the coming years, there will be a
twin-edged problem to deal with reduced freshwater availability and increased
wastewater generation due to increased population and industrialization. They
also argue that presently there are no separate regulations/guidelines for safe
handling, transport, and disposal of wastewater in the country. The existing policies
for regulating wastewater management are based on certain environmental laws and
certain policies and legal provisions. In developing countries like India, the problems associated with wastewater reuse arise from its lack of treatment. The challenge thus, as pointed out by them, is to find such low-cost, low-technology, and
user-friendly methods, which, on one hand, would avoid threatening substantial
14
1 Introduction
wastewater-dependent livelihoods and, on the other hand, protect degradation of

valuable natural resources of our nation.
Barua and Hubacek (2009) attempted to explore the EKC relationship for water
in India. The study contributes to the EKC debate by using per capita income and
water quality indicators for 16 states of India along with a variety of relevant
explanatory variables. Using a panel dataset for 20 years (19812001), they apply
both the generalized least square (GLS) and Arellano-Bond generalized method of
moments (GMM A-B). They found no evidence in support of the EKC hypothesis.
Population density, livestock population, and literacy are found to have strong
effects on the water quality of the rivers of India.
There are a large number of literatures on treatment method for removal of
various water pollutant parameters. Vasudevan et al. (2012) reveal the performance
of CETP (common effluent treatment plant) for tannery effluent in terms of BOD,
COD, TSS, TDS, and by water tracer studies using Rhodamine. CETP showed a
removal efficiency of BOD, 66 %; COD, 21 %; TSS, 21 %; and TDS, 5 %. The
study suggests that CETP has to be redesigned based on the characteristics of
influent wastewater in order to meet the Pollution Control Board prescribed standard limits for CETP. Banu et al. (2007) treat dairy wastewater entirely via
anaerobic treatment over a period of 215 days. They used two-stage hybrid upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket (HUASB) reactors, which offer the advantages associated
both with fixed film and upflow sludge blanket treatments. The two-stage reactor
was operated at an organic loading rate that varied from 10.7 to 21.4 kg COD m3/
day for a period of 215 days, including the start-up period. The ideal organic
loading rate for the two-stage reactor was 19.2 kg COD/m3/day. Combined COD
removal during the stable operation period (10.719.2 kg COD m3/day) occurred in
a range between 97 and 99 %. The two-stage anaerobic treatment using HUASB
with PUF and PVC is expected to constitute a better alternative for the complete
treatment of dairy wastewater than high-rate anaerobic, anaerobic/aerobic, and
two-phase anaerobic treatment methods.
Several studies dealt with the abatement cost of water pollution as well as the
impact of fiscal policies on water pollution in India. We review some of them. Rossi
et al. (1979), Fraas and Munley (1984), Subrahmanyam (1990), Mehta et al. (1993),
James and Murty (1999), Mehta et al. (1997), Roy and Ganguli (1997), Goldar and
Panday (1997), Goldar and Mukherjee (1998), Misra (1998), and Pandey (1997)
have dealt with the cost of pollution abatement for industries in India in which the
cost behavior has been analyzed with the help of an estimated abatement cost
function. Some of these studies used CobbDouglas functions in their analysis,
while others have made an attempt to use the transcendental logarithmic (translog)
functional form.
Engineering analysis of wastewater treatment systems suggests that the principal
determinants of abatement cost are the volume of wastewater stream and the
concentration of pollutants in the effluent stream (Frass and Munley 1984;
Subrahmanyam 1990). Subrahmanyams study provides information about production process and wastewater treatment alternatives in the Indian paper and pulp
industry. The study by James and Murty (1999) has estimated marginal abatement
1.6 A Brief Literature Review
15
cost using plant-level data of 82 firms drawn from 17 major polluting industries
identified by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) of India. This study has
used the ratio of influent and effluent concentrations in the cost function. Pandey
(1997) has made an attempt to estimate abatement costs by analyzing plant-level
data on costs of water pollution abatement in sugar industry for 53 firms using the
CobbDouglas functional forms. The analysis points out the loophole in the
existing legislation (MINAS) and suggests the pricing of water be rationalized.
Further, pollution tax would require periodic revision based on consideration such
as firms, response, and inflation advent of new technology. Also, as pollutioncausing activity rises and source-specific standards are more stringent in order to
maintain the same ambient standards, pollution tax will have to be revised from
time to time. A study by Roy and Ganguli (1997) attempts to evaluate the efficiency
of the standards for controlling BOD and COD effluents to maintain water quality
of large pulp and paper mill. Using secondary data on water pollution audit by BICP
for large pulp and paper mills, they have estimated the marginal cost of abatement
curves of BOD-5 and COD of different firms. An engineering cost function has
been used. The focus of Goldar and Mukherjees (1998) paper is on methodological
and estimation issues for water pollution abatement cost function. They have also
suggested an alternative approach to specifying the production function for abatement activity that avoids all these problems.
The study by Misra (1998) provides empirical evidence on economies of scale in
water pollution abatement activity at Nandesari Industrial Estate comprising
250 small-scale factories. The study shows that the cost burden of water pollution
abatement is much higher for small factories providing greater cost advantage to
treat effluents jointly in a common effluent treatment plant (CETP).
Dasgupta and Murty (1985) explore some problems related to the control of
external diseconomies (damages) inflicted on water resources by various developmental activities. Their study has shown that paper and pulp industry in India
contributes significant environmental pollution which requires additional resources
to abate it. Estimates of costs of water pollution abatement for big and small paper
mills show that the comparative capital and operation costs per ton of paper for the
small paper mill is more than double that for the big mill. Pollution abatement costs
for big and small paper mills at shadow prices are significantly higher than those at
market prices. James and Murty (1999) have suggested the use of incentives-based
policies as the most efficient technique for the control of environmental pollution.
Recently Tare et al. (2012) present a comparative assessment of the cost and
quality of treatment of tannery wastewater in India by two CETPs constructed for
two tannery clusters, at Jajmau and Unnao in Uttar Pradesh, India. The Jajmau plant
is upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) process based, while the Unnao plant is
activated sludge process (ASP) based. Investigations indicated that the ASP-based
plant was superior in all respects. Total annualized costs, including capital and
operation and maintenance costs, for the UASB and ASP plants were Rs. 4.24
million/million liters per day (MLD) and Rs. 3.36 million/MLD, respectively. The
results of this study do not support the conventional view of the superiority of
16
1 Introduction
anaerobic processes for tannery wastewater treatment in tropical developing countries like India.
An economy consists of a large number of industries. These industries do not
exist in isolation from each other, rather are interdependent. This interdependence
arises from the fact that the output of an industry is generally required as an input by
another industry. Though some industries do not produce pollution directly, they
produce pollution indirectly in a very significant way. Only limited numbers of
industries in India have been compelled to minimize the generation of pollution.
Even if a single industry, for example, the chemical industry, tries to control the
pollution it generates, production cost is bound to increase. Such an increase in
production cost will affect the market price of the product of chemical industries.
Since the product of this industry is used by other industries, they will also be
impacted. In this way, the prices of all the sectors will also be affected. Thus,
pollution control schemes will also influence the demand for output of different
products which are used as inputs.
However, quantitative analysis involving interdependence between water pollution and all branches of production and consumption of an economy is few. In this
respect, we can refer the work of Sanchez-Choliz and Duarte (2005) who discuss
the relationships between production processes and water pollution based on the
recent Satellite Water Accounts (SWA) and the 1997 inputoutput table for the
Spanish economy. The study focuses on four pollutants (BOD, metals, nitrogen,
and phosphorus) and seven sector blocks. They have identified the roles of the
various sectors as generators and consumers of each type of pollution. Furthermore,
they examined how pollution responds to changes in the unit coefficients of
pollution and final demand patterns to obtain the shadow prices for the different
pollutants. The results obtained provide a sound basis for the design of improvements in environmental policy.
Maiti and Chakraborty (1999) and Chakraborty et al. (2001) have contributed to
this field for India. They have studied different types of water pollutant generated
directly and indirectly in different industries. In addition, they have also analyzed
the effect of pollution control cost on the economy. This study makes an attempt in
that direction.
1.7
Objective
The objective of the book is to:

(a) Evaluate the status of water pollution in developed and developing Asia
(b) Estimate the total amount of water pollution generation directly and indirectly
from different sectors/activities of India
(c) Study the effect of pollution abatement scheme on the output and prices of
different goods and services and also on the final consumers of the Indian
economy
1.8 Arrangement of the Chapters
17
(d) Estimate the water pollution content in Indias foreign trade sector
(e) Account for defensive expenditure arising from water pollution and also estimate Green GDP
(f) Assess the different case studies focused on water pollution-intensive industries
in India
(g) Suggest a portfolio of policies and also assess the implications of such policies
on pollution generation in India
1.8
Arrangement of the Chapters
This chapter provides a discussion on the link between environment and development. It covers the problem of water pollution and development. A brief review of
literatures primarily focusing on water pollution, its effect, on quality indices and
wastewater treatment is also presented.
Chapter 2 describes the status of water pollution in different countries of Asia
including India. What are the major sources of water pollution and impacts in these
countries? It also reviews the measures/acts/policies adopted and implemented so
far by the respective governments.
Chapter 3 formulates the model based on inputoutput framework. A pollution
model is developed to capture the generation of water pollution from different
industrial activities. It estimates both direct and indirect water pollution content of
different economic activities. The model is further extended to incorporate pollution abatement cost and its impacts on output and prices of the economy.
Chapter 4 provides the data from various sources and discusses the processing
of data.
Experiments with the models and discussion on the results are presented in
Chap. 5. This chapter analyzes the results on direct and indirect water pollution
requirement, water pollution content of the total final demand of different sectors of
India, and effects of pollution abatement costs on output and prices of different
goods and services.
With economic reform and ambitious export policies, the Indian economy is
now expanding and diversifying its exports. This might have some implications on
generation of water pollution. This is the focus of Chap. 6 which measures the water
pollution content in trade.
Certain policy simulation exercises on the basis of alternative pollution control
schemes are carried out in Chap. 7. It suggests some policies and also evaluates the
implications of such policies on pollution generation as well as output and prices.
Chapter 8 calculates the green GDP considering the defensive expenditure
arising from water pollution in economic activity. It measures green GDP of
India to find out the Environmentally Adjusted National Income Accounts for the
study period. It also estimates the impacts of different policy simulation exercises
as carried out in Chap. 7 on green GDP measure.
18
1 Introduction
Chapter 9 reviews a number of case studies on various industries conducted

across different states in India.
Chapter 10 summarizes and concludes the study.
References
Banu JR, Kalippan S, Yeom I-T (2007) The two stage anaerobic treatment of dairy wastewater
using HUASB with PUF and PVC carrier. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 12:257264
Bartlett B (1994) The high cost of turning green. The Wall Street Journal, September 14
Barua A, Hubacek K (2008) Water pollution and economic growth in India: an environmental
Kuznets curve analysis on the watershed and state level. Ecol Econ Stat 10:6378
Barua A, Hubacek K (2009) An empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve for water
pollution in India. Int J Global Environ Issue 9(1):5068
Beckerman W (1992) Economic development and the environment: conflict or complementarity?
Background paper for the World Development Report 1992, Country Economics Department
Working Paper 961, World Bank
Borghesi S (2000) Income inequality and the environmental Kuznets curve. Nota di Lavoro 85.99,
Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei
Briz - Kishore BH (1992) Save water the ten commandments. Bhagirath 29:112
CAG (2011) CAG Audit report no. 21 of 201112, Union Government (Scientific Department)
performance audit of water pollution in India. Report, Comptroller & Auditor General of India,
New Delhi
Chakraborty D, Datta S, Maity S, Majumdar S (2001) A study on the effect of pollution control
schemes on output and prices of different goods and services of the Indian economy. National
and International Policy Issues EERC Working Paper Series, NIP-1, Government of India
Cheppi P (2012) Musi river water pollution its impact on cropping pattern. Res J Humanit Soc Sci
3(4):514518
CSO (2011) Input-output transaction table 20067. Central Statistical Organisation, Ministry of
Programme and Implementation, Government of India
CWC (2010) Water and related statistics. Water Resource Information System Directorate,
Information System Organisation, Water Planning & Project Wing, Central Water Commission, New Delhi
Daly HE (1977) Steady-state economics: the economics of biophysical equilibrium and moral
growth. Freeman, San Francisco, p 185
Dasgupta AK, Murty MN (1985) Economic evaluation of water pollution abatement: a case study
of paper and pulp industry in India. Indian Econ Rev XX(2):232267
Dasgupta S, Laplante B, Wang H, Wheeler D (2002) Confronting the environmental Kuznets
curve. J Econ Perspect 16(1):147168
de Bruyn SM, Heintz RJ (1999) The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. In: van den Bergh
JCJM (ed) Handbook of environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar, Northampton,
pp 656677
Ezzati M, Singer B, Kammen D (2001) Towards an integrated framework for development and
environment policy: the dynamics of environmental Kuznets curves. World Dev 29
(8):14211434
Frass AG, Munley VG (1984) Municipal waste water treatment cost. J Environ Econ Manage
11:2838
Georgescu-Roegen N (1971) The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA
GOI (2006) National environment policy 2006. Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government
of India, New Delhi
References
19
GOI (20102011) Statistical appendix: economic survey 201011. Government of India

GOI (2011) State of Indian agriculture 201112. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation,
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Retrieved from: http://agricoop.nic.in/
sia111213312.pdf
Goldar B, Mukherjee B (1998) Pollution abatement cost function: methodological and estimation
issues. C. D. E. Working paper no. 56, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi
Goldar B, Pandey R (1997) Fiscal instruments for pollution abatement: a study of distillers in
India. Paper presented at the 53rd Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance,
Kyoto
Grossman GM (1995) Population and growth: what do we do? In: Goldin I, Winters LA (eds) The
economics of sustainable development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1945
Grossman G, Kreuger A (1993) Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. In: Garber PM (ed) The U.S. Mexico free trade agreement. MIT Press, Boston, pp 1356
International Agency for Research on Cancer (2004) Monograph 84: some drinking water disinfectants and contaminants, including arsenic. International Agency for Research on Cancer,
Lyon
James AJ, Murty MN (1999) Water pollution abatement: a taxes-and-standards approach for
Indian industry. In: Murty MN, James AJ, Misra S (eds) Economics of industrial pollution
abatement: theory and empirical evidence from the Indian experience. Oxford University
Press, Delhi
Kaur R, Wani SP, Singh AK, Lal K (2012) Wastewater production, treatment and use in India.
Country report India, India. Retrieved from http://www.ais.unwater.org/ais/pluginfile.php/356/
mod_page/content/111/CountryReport_India.pdf
Kjellstrom T, Lodh M, McMichael T, Ranmuthugala G, Shrestha R, Kingsland S (2006) Air and
water pollution: burden and strategies for control. In: Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR
et al (eds) Disease control priorities in developing countries, 2nd edn. World Bank,
Washington, DC, pp 817832
Kumar V, Jain SK (2007) Status of virtual water trade from India. Curr Sci 93(8):10931099
Leontief W (1970) Environmental repercussion and the economic structure: empirical results of
inputoutput approach. Rev Econ Stat 52(3):260271
Maity S, Chakraborty D (1999) Effect of pollution control scheme on output and prices of various
goods and services: an input-output approach. Indian J Appl Econ 8(4):99119
McKenzie D, Ray I (2004) Household water delivery options in urban and rural India. Working
paper no. 224, Stanford Centre for International Development, Stanford University
Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens W (1972) The limits to growth. Universe Books,
New York
Mehta S, Mundle S, Sarkar U (1993) Incentives and regulations for pollution control with an
applications to waste water treatment. National Institute of Public Finance and Policy,
New Delhi
Mehta S, Mundle S, Sarkar U (1997) Controlling pollution: incentives & regulations. Sage,
New Delhi
Misra S (1998) Economies of scale in water pollution abatement: a case study of small- scale
factories in industrial estate in India. Working paper no. 57, Delhi School of Economics
Murata K, Weihe P, Budtz-Jorgensen E, Jorgensen PJ, Grandjean P (2004) Delayed brainstem
auditory evoked potential latencies in 14-year-old children exposed to methylmercury.
J Pediatr 144:177183
Murty MN, Kumar S (2011) Water pollution in India: an economic appraisal. In: India infrastructure report 2011: water policy and performance for sustainable development. IDFC and Oxford
University Press, New Delhi, pp 285298
Muyibi SA, Ambali AR, Eissa GS (2008) The impact of economic development on water
pollution: trends and policy actions in Malaysia. Water Resour Manage 22:485508
ONeill R, Kahn J, Duncan J et al (1996) Economic growth and sustainability: a new challenge.
Ecol Appl 6(1):2324
20
1 Introduction
Okadera T, Watanabe M, Xu K (2006) Analysis of water demand and water pollutant discharge
using a regional inputoutput table: an application to the city of Chongqing, upstream of the
three Gorges Dam in China. Ecol Econ 58(2):221237
Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different
stages of economic development. Working Paper WP238 Technology and Employment
Programme, International Labor Office, Geneva
Panayotou T (1995) Environmental degradation at different stages of economic development.
Beyond Rio: the environmental crisis and sustainable livelihoods in the third world. MacMillan,
London
Pandey R (1997) Designing of Pigouvian tax for pollution abatement in sugar industry. Working
paper no. 3 NIPFP, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi
Parikh J (2004) Environmentally sustainable development in India. Retrieved 22 Aug 2008, from
http://scid.stanford.edu/events/India2004/JParikh.pdf
Paudel KP, Zapata H, Susanto D (2005) An empirical test of environmental Kuznets curve for
water pollution. Environ Resour Econ 31:325348
Resosudarmo BP (2003) River water pollution in Indonesia: an input-output analysis. Int J Environ
Sustain Dev 2(1):6277
Rossi D, Young CE, Epp DJ (1979) The cost impact of joint treatment of domestic and poultry
processing wastewaters. Land Econ 55(4):444459
Roy J, Ganguli S (1997) Evaluation of pollution abatement policy for paper industries in IndiaStandard vs tax. Mimeograph paper, Jadavpur University
Sanchez-Choliz J, Duarte R (2005) Water pollution in the Spanish economy: analysis of sensitivity
to production and environmental constraints. Ecol Econ 53(3):325338
Selden TM, Song D (1994) Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for
air pollution emissions? J Environ Econ Environ Manage 27:147162
Shafik N (1994) Economic development and environmental quality; an econometric analysis.
Oxford Econ Pap 46:757773
Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time series and
cross-country evidence. Background paper for the World Development Report 1992,
The World Bank
Subrahmanyam PVR (1990) Waste management in pulp and paper industry. J Indian Assoc
Environ Manage 17:7994
Suri V, Chapman D (1998) Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for the environmental
Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 25:195208
Tare V, Gupta S, Bose P (2012) Case studies on biological treatment of tannery effluents in India.
J Air Waste Manage Assoc 53(8):976982
Vasudevan N, Justin Aaron PS, Greeshma O (2012) Performance evaluation of a common effluent
treatment plant for tannery industries. J Eco-Biotechnol 4(1):2528
WCED (1987) Our common future, World Commission on Environment and Development.
Oxford University Press, New York
WHO (1990) Public health impact of pesticides used in agriculture. World Health Organization,
Geneva
WHO (2001) Arsenic and arsenic compounds. Environmental health criteria. World Health
Organization, Geneva
WHO (2003) Guidelines for drinking water quality, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/guidelines/3rd/en/
WHO (2007) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, incorporation first addendum, vol 1, recommendations, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva
WHO and International Programme on Chemical Safety (2002) Global assessment of the state of
science of endocrine disruptors. Document WHO/PCS/EDC/02.2. WHO and the International
Programme on Chemical Safety
References
21
WHO and UNICEF (2000) Global water supply and sanitation assessment 2000 report. World
Health Organization and United Nations Childrens Fund Joint Monitoring Programme for
Water Supply and Sanitation
World Bank (1999) Greening industry: new roles for communities, markets, and governments.
Yandle B, Vijayaraghavan M, Bhattarai M (2002) The environmental Kuznets curve: a primer.
PERC research study 02-1, Property and Environment Research Center
Yassi AL, Kjellstrom T, DeKok T, Guidotti T (2001) Basic environmental health. Oxford
University Press, New York
Chapter 2
Status of Water Pollution in India and Other

Countries of Asia
2.1
Introduction
During the last 50 years or more, increasing population, industrialization, and

agricultural development have profoundly impacted on natural ecosystems and
water quality (Khan and Hanjra 2009; Park et al. 2010).
Water resources are coming under intense pressure in Asia. The Asia Pacific
region has the highest annual water withdrawal and return flows among the worlds
regions due to its geographic size, population, and extensive and intensive irrigation
practices. More than half of global irrigation is taking place in Asia and results in a
high level of agrochemical consumption, which is nonpoint source pollution.
Another form of nonpoint source pollution comes from the topography of the
region, resulting in high sediment loads (Evans et al. 2012).
The domestic pollution problems are a factor not only of the wastewater generated but also of inadequate treatment and management measures. The volume of
wastewater generated annually across Asia is nearly 144 km3, of which 37 % is
generated in China, 27 % in South Asia, 20 % in Japan, 6 % in Southeast Asia, and
3 % in Central Asia (AQUASTAT 2011; Evans et al. 2012). Only an estimated 33
35 % of all wastewater in Asia is treated, with the lowest treatment rates in South
Asia (7 %) and Southeast Asia (14 %) (Table 2.1).
Increasing water pollution from accelerating domestic, industrial, and agricultural activities is a major issue for nearly all Asian developing countries.
Table 2.2 gives an overview of the level of BOD pollutions among the developing countries in Asia. China, as the largest economy among the regions observed,
reported the most pollution, at 8.82 million kg/day in 2006, eclipsing BOD emissions from the other regions. This is compared to a combined total BOD emission of
1.96 million kg/day from Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, the major polluting
countries in the Southeast Asian region. These levels were not surprising when
viewed in context of the countries GDP, as in 2006, Chinas GDP was about 4.6
times of that of the three countries combined.

23
24
2 Status of Water Pollution in India and Other Countries of Asia
Table 2.1 Wastewater generation and treatment in Asia

Wastewater generated
Wastewater treated
3
Reporting
Volume (km
year 1)
Country
year
Bangladesh
2000
0.725
Bhutan
2000
0.004
Cambodia
2000
1.184
China
2006
53.700
India
1996
25.410
Japan
2007
28.500
Laos
2000
0.546
Malaysia
1995
2.690
Maldives
2000
0.004
Mongolia
2002
0.126
Myanmar
2000
0.017
Nepal
2006
0.135
Pakistan
2000
12.330
Philippines
1993
0.074
Republic of Korea
1996
7.947
Singapore
2000
0.470
Sri Lanka
2000
0.950
Thailand
2007
2.191
Viet Nam
2003
1.100
Kazakhstan
1993
1.833
Kyrgyzstan
2006
0.701
Tajikistan
1999
0.026
Turkmenistan
2000
1.181
Uzbekistan
2001
2.200
Source: Evans et al. (2012)
Note: indicates that data are not available for that year
Reporting
year
1994
2004
2004
2008
1995
2002
2006
2000
1993
1996
2007
2003
1993
2006
1998
1994
2001
Volume (km3
year 1)
n/a
n/a
0.0002
22.100
2.555
14.250
n/a
0.398
NA
0.083
n/a
0.006
0.145
0.010
4.180
n/a
n/a
0.523
0.250
0.274
0.148
0.061
0.025
2.069
Most of the countries also reported a significant growth in BOD pollution that
seemed to accompany economic development in the region. This is especially true
for Thailand and Vietnam which saw their BOD emissions increased by 86.5 % and
254.9 %, respectively, from 1998 to 2006. This is alarming since GDP grew at a
much slower rate in these two countries over the same period. Between 1998 and
2006, GDP in Thailand and Vietnam only grew by 47.5 and 73.9 %.
The situation is even more serious and complex with the inclusion of industrial
wastewater discharges. These receive mostly inadequate treatment in nearly all
Asian developing countries. Few Asian urban centers have functional secondary
and tertiary waste treatment plants. Many primary waste treatment plants are
nonfunctional for significant periods of time because of poor design, inadequate
management, poor infrastructure facilities, and lack of public awareness. Most of
these plants operate with low efficiency. Since the domestic wastes are primarily
organic, they degrade over a limited time. However, the situation is more complex
2.1 Introduction
Table 2.2 BOD emissions in
selected developing countries
in Asia (kg/day)
25
1998
Bangladesh
303,022
China
N/A
Indonesia
721,774
Malaysia
N/A
Pakistan
N/A
Philippines
179,901
Sri Lanka
N/A
Thailand
311,822
Vietnam
141,036
Source: WDI (2012)
2003
N/A
7,066,070
731,009
181,715
N/A
143,262
N/A
N/A
399,522
2006
N/A
8,823,750
882,985
208,312
153,680
N/A
266,109
581,425
500,482
and serious for industrial wastes, because they contain significant amounts of
conservative elements. These elements may be toxic to human beings and ecosystems and are not easily biodegradable.
With rapid industrial and urban growth, environmentally sound wastewater
disposal in all Asian developing countries is increasingly becoming a serious social
and human health issue. Surface water and groundwater sources for urban centers
are being contaminated with domestic and industrial wastes and require higher
levels of treatment before they can be used safely as potable water. However, the
treatment processes need sophisticated technologies which are too expensive for
most of the developing countries. In practice, collection and disposal are done in
nearby rivers, lakes, and water bodies within and around urban centers. This leads
to contamination of the water bodies. Land disposal of wastewater is also contaminating groundwater, which is often an important source of drinking water. These
are considered to be point sources of contamination from domestic and industrial
users. However, nonpoint sources cannot be ignored because the use of agricultural
chemicals is likely to increase in the future for improving crop production to
enhance both farmers incomes and food security. This will further aggravate the
water quality situation because control and management of nonpoint sources of
pollution are very complex and difficult tasks as experienced by even the most
developed countries like Japan and the United States (ADB 2007).
In a macro sense, one major challenge facing Asian developing countries is how
quickly and efficiently current wastewater management practices and processes can
be substantially improved. Considering the cost of construction and efficient operation of wastewater management systems together with the lack of trained and
skilled personnel needed to manage them this problem is likely to continue in the
foreseeable future (ADB 2007). Thus, over the years, water pollution has emerged
as a major issue. South Asia particularly India and Southeast Asia are facing
severe water pollution problems. Rivers such as the Yellow (China), Ganges
(India), and Amu and Syr Darya (Central Asia) top the list of the worlds most
polluted rivers (World Commission on Water 1999). Most water bodies in cities in
the developing countries of the region are now heavily polluted with domestic
sewage, industrial effluents, chemicals, and solid wastes.
26
Water pollution has affected human health adversely. In the Pacific Islands,
especially in some communities, the use of polluted groundwater for drinking and
cooking has led to health problems such as diarrhea, hepatitis, and occasional
outbreaks of typhoid and cholera. Groundwater in districts of West Bengal, India,
and in some villages in Bangladesh, for example, is contaminated with arsenic at
levels as much as 70 times higher than the national drinking water standard of
0.05 mg/L (UNEP 2002).
During the past decade, several countries have started to address their water
quality problem by implementing large-scale programs and action plans to rehabilitate degraded streams and depleted aquifers. These programs are given legislative or statutory authority such as that provided by Thailands National Water
Quality Act, the Philippine Water Quality Code, Indias Environment Protection
Act, Chinas Water Law, and the Republic of Koreas Water Quality Preservation
Act (UNESCAP 1999). Success has been achieved where water policies adopted a
multisectoral and multidisciplinary approach to the management of water
resources.
2.1.1
Agricultural Pollution
Agriculture is the major contributor of nonpoint source pollution of surface water

and groundwater worldwide (Chhabra et al. 2010). Fertilizers are a major pollutant.
Due to the increased use of fertilizer, rice-producing and vegetable-cultivating
areas have the most impact of groundwater quality (Chowdary et al. 2005). The
excessive use of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and defoliants and the resulting
water quality degradation are responsible for health problems (ESCAP 2000).
While some countries in the region are trying to reduce fertilizer use, others,
including India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, are increasing its use and
this will likely aggravate the nonpoint source pollution in those countries (ESCAP
2005).
2.1.2
Industrial Pollution
Many Asian countries have undergone a structural change from agriculture to a

more industry-based economy. More than 20 % of the total GDP is coming from
industrial activity (ESCAP 2005). For example, food and beverages, electrical
equipment, cement, metals, chemicals, plastic and rubber products, and textiles
have expanded their production activity extensively. Table 2.3 lists sectoral shares
of BOD in selected countries in Asia.
A breakdown of the sources of BOD emissions in the developing countries in
Asia showed that in the majority of them, the largest contributor of BOD emission
is the textile industry followed by the food industry. The former is especially
2.2 Status of Water Pollution in India
27
Table 2.3 Sectoral share of BOD emissions in selected countries in 2006 (%)
Clay and
Chemical glass
Food
industry
industry industry
China
13
6.5
7.4
Indonesia
12
4
23.1
Malaysia
16.5
3.8
9.1
Pakistan
9.1
4.3
15.1
Sri Lanka
9
6.3
22.4
Thailand
12.4
4.7
16.4
Vietnam
6.8
6.7
13.3
0.1
34.2
Bangladesha 3.5
8
0.5
39.7
Irana
3.9
1.2
43.3
Nepala
8.2
0.2
51.5
Indiaa
Source: WDI (2012)
a
ESCAP (2000) cited in Evans et al. (2012)
Metal
industry
7.2
1.4
2.8
2.2
2.6
1.9
1.4
2.8
20.6
1.5
15.5
Other
industry
38.7
19.9
48.5
11.2
9.3
37.2
24.7
1.1
5.4
1
5.2
Paper and
pulp
industry
4.1
4.1
4.9
1.9
4.3
4.2
3.5
6.8
8
8.1
7.5
Textile
industry
21.4
29.2
6.6
55.6
43.6
20.5
40.3
50.9
17.3
39.3
11.6
Wood
industry
1.7
6.3
7.8
0.4
2.5
2.8
3.3
0.6
0.7
1.7
0.3
important in the case of India because textile is one of the major export industries in
the country.
Although environmental awareness in the industrial sector has increased,
enforcement of regulations is difficult and pollution continues to rise as the region
is dominated by small- and medium-scale industries. There is a wide variation
between pollutants and across the region.
2.2
Status of Water Pollution in India
According to the Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR), the Government of India

(MoEF 2009), almost 70 % of Indias surface water resources and a growing
percentage of its groundwater reserves are contaminated by biological, toxic,
organic, and inorganic pollutants. In many cases, these sources have been rendered
unsafe for human consumption as well as for other activities, such as irrigation and
industrial needs.
Industrial, agricultural, and domestic activities contribute in terms of overall
impact on water quality. Besides, a rapidly depleting groundwater table in different
parts of the country results in groundwater contamination affecting as many as
19 states. Geogenic contaminants, including salinity, iron, fluoride, and arsenic,
have affected groundwater in over 200 districts and spread across 19 states in India
(Murty and Kumar 2011).
The level of water pollution in the country can be gauged by the status of water
quality. Water quality monitoring carried out by the Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB), particularly with respect to the indicator of oxygen-consuming
substances (BOD) and pathogenic bacteria (total coliform and fecal coliform),
shows a gradual degradation in water quality (CPCB 2009). The worrying aspect
28
of poor water quality arises because of high levels of BOD. This might be due to the
fact that discharge sources are not complying with the standards, or even after their
compliance, their high quantity of discharge contributes to elevated levels of
contaminants (Rajaram and Das 2008). However, the status of water quality cannot
be adequately assessed as there is currently inadequate number of sampling stations
to monitor basic parameters.
Another aspect of water pollution in India is the inadequate infrastructure,
comprising monitoring stations and frequency of monitoring pollution. Monitoring
is conducted for 62 parameters by the CPCB at 1,700 stations; under a Global
Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) and Monitoring of Indian National
Aquatic Resources (MINARS) programs, there has been a significant increase
from the 18 locations when monitoring started in 1977 (CPCB 2009). The results
for 2009 indicate that organic pollution continues to dominate. Almost 36 % of the
observations have BOD level of more than the standard for bathing water of 3 mg/
L, 19 % between 3 and 6 mg/L, and 17 % above 6 mg/L, with 6 of the 50 rivers
exceeding 100 mg/L. The desired total coliform (TC) standard for bathing water is
500 MPN/100 million liter, which is exceeded in 51 % of sample sites. Fecal
coliform (FC) counts also exceed this figure in 30 % of sites (CPCB 2010). This
represents a slight improvement since 1995. Progress has been made in wastewater
collection. This is an important step but does not necessarily result in treatment and
does not translate into clean rivers. Observations from 1995 to 2009 suggest only
a slight decline in overall water quality in Indian rivers (CPCB 2010).
CPCB (2009) also reports the frequency of monitoring in the country. It is
observed that 32 % of the stations have frequency of monitoring on a monthly
basis, 28.82 % on a half-yearly basis, and 38.64 % on a quarterly basis. This
indicates the need for increasing the frequency of monitoring. The water quality
monitoring results obtained by the CPCB during 1995 to 2009 indicate that organic
and bacterial contamination was critical in the water bodies. The main cause for
such contamination is the discharge of domestic and industrial wastewater in water
bodies mostly in an untreated form. Secondly, the receiving water bodies also do
not have adequate water flow for dilution. Therefore, the biological oxygen demand
and bacterial pollution are increasing. Household-borne effluents contribute a
substantial proportion of water pollution in India for both surface and groundwater
sources as about 70 % of them are disposed off into the environment untreated.
Agricultural runoffs affect groundwater and surface water sources as they
contain pesticide and fertilizer residues. Fertilizers have an indirect adverse impact
on water resources. Indeed, by increasing the nutritional content of water sources,
fertilizers allow organisms that may be a disease vector or algae to multiply more.
The proliferation of algae may slow the flow in watercourse, thus increasing the
spread of organisms and sedimentation. The WHO has defined a permissible limit
of concentration of nitrates of 45 mg/L of NO3, which is also accepted by the Indian
Council of Medical Research (ICMR). In the agricultural sector, fertilizer use
increased from 7.7 MT in 1984 to 13.4 MT in 1996 and pesticide use increased
from 24 MT in 1971 to 85 MT in 1995 (Bhalla et al. 1999). It has been observed that
in states, such as Haryana, the NO3 concentration has exceeded the permissible
29
limits (Maria 2003). Water quality data suggest that agriculture is the largest
polluter of water bodies in India (MoEF 2009). This is due to the increase in
pesticide use, which grew by 750 % over the second half of the twentieth century,
and fertilizer application, which rose from 70 kg/ha in 19911992 to 113 kg/ha in
20062007 (MoEF 2009).
Industry is a relatively small water consumer in India (3 % of annual water
withdrawals), but its contribution to water pollution is considerable. As per the
inventory of the CPCB (CPCB 20022003), there are about 8,432 large and
medium industries in India. The Central and State Pollution Control Boards have
identified 1,532 grossly polluting industries across the country (MoEF 2009).
However, the number of small-scale polluting industries could not be ascertained
because many of them are not registered. CPCB has estimated the pollution load.
Their estimation is based on average generation of wastewater per unit of product,
though it is difficult to estimate due to large variation in volume of wastewater
generation per unit of product as explained by the CPCB.
It has been estimated by CPCB (20022003) that total wastewater generated
from all major industrial sources is 82,446 MLD which includes 68,977 MLD of
cooling water generated from thermal power plants. Out of the remaining 13,469
MLD of wastewater, thermal power plants generate another 3,242 MLD as boiler
blow down water and wastewater from ash disposal. The data on wastewater
generated in India in terms of process water and cooling water show that 16 %
comes from process water and 84 % from cooling water. Share of industrial
wastewater varies across industries. Process wastewater by different categories of
industries shows that the steel industry has 8 %, engineering 32 %, thermal power
plants 24 %, textile cotton 13 %, pulp and paper 14 %, and others 9 %. The shares of
small-scale and large-scale industries in wastewater generation are 38 % and 62 %,
respectively. Under the small-scale category, the significant polluting industries are
electroplaters. The control of pollution from small-scale category is not very
effective as many of them are located in congested residential areas where land is
not available for treatment of wastewater.
From pollution point of view, the major polluter in terms of organic load is the
distilleries, followed by paper mills. Since the distilleries generate very concentrated wastewater, it is difficult to treat them. Paper and board mills also generate
heavy organic pollution load. A large number of paper mills are also in small-scale
sector, making it difficult to manage the effluent. As a result, these mills can create
heavy pollution in many areas.
The industries that generate chemical pollution can be divided into two categories: (a) those which generate high TDS bearing wastes such as pharmaceuticals,
rayon fibers, chemicals, caustic soda, soap and detergents, smelters, etc., and
(b) those which generate toxic wastes, for example, pesticides, smelters, inorganic
chemicals, organic chemicals, steel plants, pharmaceuticals, and tanneries (CPCB
20022003).
Total dissolved solid loads are primarily generated from distilleries, followed by
pharmaceuticals, sugar, and viscose rayon. Suspended solid comes mainly from
thermal power plants, followed by cotton textile, paper, steel, tanneries, sugar,
30
edible oil and vanaspati, dye and dye intermediates, pesticides, oil refinery, and
paints and varnishes. Oil and grease loads generally originate from engineering,
followed by edible oil and vanaspati, sugar, oil refineries, and paints and varnishes
(CPCB 20022003).
For the small-scale industries, it is observed that polluting industries are mostly
in engineering, textile, paper and paper board mills, pharmaceuticals, edible oil and
vanaspati, dye and dye intermediates, soap and detergent, paints and varnishes,
petrochemicals, organic chemicals, and tannery categories. Total volume of wastewater generation from small-scale industries amount to 5,084 MLD (CPCB 2002
2003).
Household-borne effluents contribute a substantial proportion of water pollution
in India. A 2007 study finds that discharge of untreated sewage is the single most
important cause for pollution of surface and groundwater in India. Nearly 12.47
million (18.5 %) households do not have access to a drainage network, while 26.83
million (39.8 %) households are connected to open drains. With respect to underground sewerage, the availability is 30 and 15 % in notified and non-notified slums,
respectively (Sridhar and Kumar 2012).
2.2.1
Wastewater Production and Treatment
With rapid expansion of cities and domestic water supply, quantity of gray/wastewater is increasing in the same proportion. City corporations, municipalities, and
panchayats having the responsibility of water supply and sanitation are supposed to
treat the effluents as per the national water pollution standards or MINAS standards.
However, a major portion of effluents, about 70 %, goes untreated. Table 2.4
provides the summary statistics of wastewater generation and treatment in Urban
India in 2008. The wastewater generation was 38,254 million liters/day in 2008, out
of which 26,467 million liters/day was untreated (CPCB 2008). Wastewater management plants in cities have a capacity of approximately 11,787.38 L/day. Delhi,
the national capital, treats less than half of the 3,267 MM liters of wastewater it
generates every day. As per the CPCB estimates, the total wastewater generation
from Class I cities (498) and Class II (410) towns in the country is around 35,558
and 2,696 MLD, respectively. Class I treats only about 32 % of the wastewater
generated in India in 2008. Maharashtra, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and
Gujarat are the major contributors of wastewater (63 %; CPCB 2008; Kaur
et al. 2012). Metropolitan cities treat about 52 % of their wastewater, but Delhi
and Mumbai account for about 69 % of the treatment capacity of metropolitan
cities, indicating that smaller towns and cities have very little wastewater treatment
capacity.
Due to strict impositions of pollution control regulation and involvement of
judiciary in implementing pollution control law and also NGO and public, a number
of effluent treatment plants have been set up (CPCB 20022003). In this regard, the
state of Gujarat and Karnataka had taken initiatives in the installation of pollution
31
Table 2.4 Wastewater treatment capacity in urban areas in India in 2008

Number of
Category cities
Class I
498
city
Class II
410
town
Total
908
Source: CPCB (2008)
Total water supply

(in MLD)
44,769.09
Wastewater generation
(in MLD)
35,558.12
3,324.83
2,696.7
48,093.88
38,254.82
Treatment capacity
(in MLD)
11,553.68 (32 %)
233.7 (8 %)
11,787.38 (31 %)
Table 2.5 Status of pollution control and defaulters in highly polluting industries under the
program of industrial pollution control in India
Units with
adequate
facilities to
comply with
Number standards,
of units December
identified 1995
India 1,551
252
Source: Evans et al. (2012)
Units with
adequate
facilities to
comply with
standards,
December
2000
24
Acquired
requisite
Defaulters,
treatment/
August
Closed disposal
1997
since
facilities
851
233
596
Defaulters,
December
2000
22
control system for large and medium industries. Since 1995, the situation has
improved to some extent with an increase in the number of installations of pollution
control systems resulting in significant reduction in pollution loads in many areas.
However, the net result is not visible due to ever-increasing pollution loads (CPCB
2003). Table 2.5 presents the status of pollution control and defaulters in India.
2.2.2
Legislations and Policies for Water Pollution in India
Since the 1970s, there have been policy responses for the prevention and control of
environmental degradation in India. There are several laws for water quality
protection in India.
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act was enacted in 1974 under article 252 of
Constitution which provides power to the Parliament to legislate for two or more States by
consent and adoption of such legislation by any other State. The Act provides for the
prevention and control of water pollution and for the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water in the country.
To achieve this objective, the Act provided for establishing Boards at the Central and
State level for the prevention and control of water pollution and conferred and assigned
powers and functions relating this to these Boards. It lays down a system of consent
whereby no industry or operator process or any treatment and disposal system can be
established without the previous consent of the State Board. Similarly, no industry or
process can discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or land in
32

excess of the standards. Contravention of the provisions of this Act is punishable in
monetary as well non-monetary terms.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 provides for the levy of
cess on use of water by various users of water i.e. industry and local authorities which are
entrusted with duty of supplying of water under the law. This cess was meant to augment
the funds required by State pollution Boards for their effective functioning in discharge of
duties under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (CAG 2011).
The Cess is collected by the State Government concerned and paid to the Central
Government.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides for the protection and improvement of
environment and for matters connected there with. The definition of environment
includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between
water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and
property (CAG 2011).
The Central Government has the power to take all such measures as it deems
necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of
the environment and preventing controlling and abating environmental pollution.
Thus, MOEF has the responsibility of controlling water pollution under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (CAG 2011). The penalty provisions under various
Acts relating to control and prevention of water pollution are documented in
Table 2.6.
It should be reported that Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
was adopted by all the 25 states of India, and states pollution control board/
committee were framed in these states (CAG 2011).
2.2.3
Policy Framework
Strong policy framework is an essential first step in effectively regulating water

quality. With respect to policy formulation by the government, two policies were
formulated: The National Water Policy 1987 and National Environment Policy
2006.
1. The National Water Policy was adopted in 1987 and was reviewed and updated
by National Water Policy 2002 by the Ministry of Water Resources in 2002. This
policy aimed at meeting the challenges that have emerged in the development
and management of water resources, including water pollution.
Some of the salient features of National Water Policy relating to water
pollution are as follows:
(a) Both surface water and groundwater should be regularly monitored for
quality. A phased program should be undertaken for improvements in
water quality.
(b) Effluents should be treated to acceptable levels and standards before
discharging them into natural streams.
33
Table 2.6 Penalty provisions

The Water (Prevention
Name of the
and Control of Pollution)
act/provision Act, 1974
Provision
Failure to comply with
relating to
provisions or for conpenalty
travention of the provisions of the act and
the rules, orders, and
directions shall, in
respect of each such
failure or contravention, be punishable
with
Imprisonment for a term
which may extend to
3 months to 6 years
Fine which may extend to
10,000 and in case
failure continues, with
an additional fine
which may extend to
5,000 for every day
during which such
failure continues after
the conviction for the
first such failure
The Water (Prevention

and Control of Pollution)
Cess Act, 1977
provisions or for contravention of the provisions of the act and
with
Imprisonment which may
extend to 6 months
The Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986
provisions or for contravention of the provisions of the act and
with
Imprisonment for a term
which may extend to
5/7 years
Fine which may extend to Fine which may extend to
one thousand or with
one lakh, continued
both
failure or contravention, with additional
fine which may extend
to five thousand for
every day during
which such failure or
contravention continues after the conviction for the first
such failure or
contravention
Or with both
Source: CAG (2011)
(c) Principle of polluter pays should be followed in management of polluted

water.
(d) Necessary legislation is to be made for the preservation of existing water
bodies by preventing encroachment and deterioration of water quality.
2. National Environment Policy 2006 has outlined an action plan to address the
water pollution. Some of the elements of the action plan are to:
(a) Develop and implement, initially on a pilot scale, publicprivate partnership
models for setting up and operating effluent and sewage treatment plants.
(b) Prepare and implement action plans for major cities for addressing water
pollution, comprising regulatory systems.
(c) Implement the projects through public agencies as well as publicprivate
partnerships for treatment, reuse, and recycle of sewage and wastewater
34
from municipal and industrial sources, before final discharge to water

bodies.
(d) Prevent pollution of water bodies from other sources, especially waste
disposal on lands.
(e) Enhance capacities for spatial planning among the state and local governments, with adequate participation by local communities.
(f) Ensure clustering of polluting industries to facilitate setting up of common
effluent treatment plants to be operated on cost recovery basis.
(g) Ensure that legal entity status is available for common effluent treatment
plants to facilitate investments and enable enforcement of standards.
(h) Promote R&D in the development of low-cost technologies for sewage
treatment at different scales.
(i) Take explicit account of groundwater pollution in pricing policies of agricultural inputs, especially pesticides, and dissemination of agronomy
practices.
National Water Policy 2002 envisages that within a time-bound manner, states
would frame and adopt state water policy. With respect to state water policy
formulation, most of the states in India have framed water policy. Thus, to address
water pollution is one of the thrust areas of national water and environmental
policy.
2.3
Status of Water Pollution in Other Countries in Asia
This section briefly presents the status of water pollution across Asia. Due to
paucity of information, we could only focus briefly on few countries.
2.3.1
Pakistan
Despite irrigation being the largest water consumption (96 % of total withdrawals),
the pollution caused by agriculture, particularly in relation to fertilizer use, is
marginal compared to industrial and domestic sources in Pakistan (Pak-EPA
2005). Industrial growth is putting considerable pressure on water resources
(ADB 2008). Tanneries, food processing industries, pharmaceuticals, and textiles
are all major contributors of pollutants, including high BOD levels, acids, ammonia, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons (Pak-EPA 2005). Despite legislation, only 5 %
of national (compared with 91 % of multinational) industries provide environmental assessments, and many do not adhere to the permissible limits for pollution loads
(Pak-EPA 2005). Only 1 % of wastewater is treated before being discharged into
rivers and drains.
2.3 Status of Water Pollution in Other Countries in Asia
35
According to the National Environmental Quality Standard, the pollutant level in

rivers, lakes, and groundwater in Pakistan is exceeding the standards since last
decade. It has not experienced appreciable improvement in recent years (Pak-EPA
2005).
2.3.2
Bangladesh
Another country with major concerns about chemicals (arsenic) in water is

Bangladesh. Estimates indicate that 2835 million people of Bangladeshs population of 130 million are exposed to arsenic levels exceeding 50 g/L, the prescribed
limit for drinking water in Bangladesh (Kinniburgh and Smedley 2001). This
number increases to 4657 million if the WHO guideline level of 10 g/L is
used. The most common sign of arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh is skin lesions
characterized by hyperkeratosis and melanosis.
The arsenic mitigation programs have applied various arsenic removal technologies, but the costs and benefits are not well established. Bangladesh has adopted a
drinking water standard of 50 g/L for arsenic in drinking water. The cost of
achieving the lower WHO guideline value of 10 g/L would be significant. An
evaluation of the cost of lowering arsenic levels in drinking water predicts that a
reduction from 50 to 10 g/L would prevent a limited number of deaths from
bladder and lung cancer at a cost of several million dollars per death prevented
(Frost et al. 2002).
2.3.3
Sri Lanka
Water quality is a major issue in Sri Lanka. Pollution and waste dumping contaminate water supplies, leading to serious health impacts for nearby water users. In one
of the countrys most serious cases of water pollution, 300,000 people in Gampola
were at risk when an epidemic of viral hepatitis broke out (Global Water Partnership 2011).
Industrial pollution is also an issue. The Maha Oya, one of Sri Lankas largest
rivers, was affected by factories discharging effluents, dyes, and chemicals into its
waters. In the town of Alawa, many people suffered from skin diseases and other
health issues due to contaminated water. GWP experts gave evidence to local
authorities and provided data about the impacts of the pollution. In response, the
authorities introduced regulations forcing the factories to treat the effluent. Now,
15,000 people have access to better quality water (Global Water Partnership 2011).
36
2.3.4
Malaysia
Water pollution in Malaysia originates from both point and nonpoint sources. Point
sources that have been identified include sewage treatment plants, manufacturing,
agro-based industries, and animal farms. Nonpoint sources are mainly diffused ones
such as agricultural activities and surface runoffs. According to Malaysia Environment Quality Report 2004, the Department of Environment has recorded 17,991
water pollution point sources in 2004 comprising mainly sewage treatment plants
(54 %), manufacturing industries (38 %), animal farms (5 %), and agro-based
industries (3 %). Furthermore, according to the Department of Environment
(DOE) of Malaysia, approximately 2,292 industries have been identified as significant water pollutant sources in Peninsular Malaysia. The major potentially polluting industries were 928 (40 %) food and beverage factories, 324 (14.1 %) rubber
producing premises, and 270 (11.4 %) chemical producers. In terms of organic
water pollution load, sewage and animal wastes were the major contributors of
water pollution followed by manufacturing and agro-based industries in the country
(WEPA 2011a).
Suspended solids, as an indicator of soil erosion that resulted in river siltation,
continued to pose major environmental problems in the countrys water resources.
Soil erosion from construction sites has been excessive in Peninsular Malaysia. In
1998, 43 % of the total rivers monitored by DOE were polluted by ammoniacal
nitrogen discharged from both sewage and animal husbandry wastes into the water
resources. Suspended solid pollutants have accounted for 3.421 % by BOD from
both agro-based and manufacturing industries (WEPA 2011a).
Between the year 2000 and 2004, the major contributors of water pollution were
effluents from manufacturing industries with an estimate of 37.9 % and urban
domestic sewage facilities, which amounted to 52.6 % of the total water pollutants
in the country. The pollution loads contributed by these pollutants significantly
affected the river quality. Analysis of manufacturing industries in 2000 showed that
the food and beverage industry constituted 23.7 % of the total sources of industrial
water pollution, while electrical and electronic industries accounted for 11.4 %. The
chemical industry was found to contribute 11.2 % and the paper industry generated
8.8 % of the total pollution. The textile and finishing/electroplating industry
accounted for 7.4 % and 5.3 % water pollution source, respectively. The effluents
from palm oil and rubber factories generated into water resources amounted to
5.3 % and 2 %, respectively.
The Department of Environment (DOE) used Water Quality Index (WQI) to
evaluate the status of the river water quality. The WQI serves as the basis for
environment assessment of a watercourse in relation to pollution load categorization and designation of classes of beneficial uses as provided for under the National
Water Quality Standards for Malaysia (NWQS). In 2006, a total of 1,064 water
quality monitoring stations located within 146 river basins were monitored. Out of
these 1,064 monitoring stations, 619 (58 %) were found to be clean, 359 (34 %)
slightly polluted, and 86 (8 %) polluted. Stations located upstream were generally
37
clean, while those downstream were either slightly polluted or polluted. In terms of
river basin water quality, 80 river basins (55 %) were clean, 59 (40 %) slightly
polluted, and 7 (5 %) were polluted. The major pollutants were biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3-N), and suspended solids (SS). In
2006, 22 river basins were categorized as being polluted by BOD, 41 river basins
by NH3-N, and 42 river basins by SS. High BOD was caused largely by untreated or
partially treated sewage and discharges from agro-based and manufacturing industries. The main sources of NH3-N were domestic sewage and livestock farming,
while the sources for SS were mostly earthworks and land-clearing activities
(WEPA 2011a).
Analysis of heavy metals in 5,613 water samples revealed that almost all
samples complied with Class III, National Water Quality Standards for arsenic
(As), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn), except
iron (Fe) with 83 % compliance. Intensified enforcement efforts and good environmental management practices could also have contributed to the water quality
improvement (WEPA 2011a).
2.3.5
The Philippines
There are about 85,000 manufacturing industries in the Philippines, with Metro
Manila as the prime industrial region accounting for about 52 % of the total
manufacturing establishments. These establishments are classified into 30 major
industrial groups. Food manufacturing constitutes the biggest number of
manufacturing establishments in the country. Only 5 % of the total population is
connected to a sewer network, while the vast majority uses flush toilets connected to
septic tanks. Since sludge treatment and disposal facilities are rare, most effluents
are discharged without treatment (World Bank 2005). According to the Asian
Development Bank, the Pasig River is one of the worlds most polluted rivers
(ADB 2007). Over 36 % of the countrys river systems are classified as sources of
public water supply. It is found that up to 58 % of groundwater sampled is
contaminated with coliform and it needs treatment (ADB 2007).
The main sources of organic water pollution are domestic and industrial sewage,
effluent from palm oil mills, rubber factories, and animal husbandry. On the other
hand, mining operations, housing and road development, logging, and clearing of
forest are major causes of high concentration of suspended sediments in the rivers.
In several urban and industrial areas, organic pollution of water has resulted in
environmental problems and adversely affected aquatic life. In addition to organic
wastes, rivers remain a convenient means of solid waste disposal. A major portion
of household refuse, which is not collected, burnt, or buried, is thrown into drains
and rivers.
Nearly 2.2 million metric tons of organic pollution are produced annually by
domestic (48 %), agricultural (37 %), and industrial (15 %) sectors. In the four
water-critical regions, water pollution is dominated by domestic and industrial
38
sources. Untreated wastewater affects health by spreading disease-causing bacteria

and viruses, makes water unfit for drinking and recreational use, threatens biodiversity, and deteriorates overall quality of life. The annual economic losses caused
by water pollution are estimated at Php67 billion (US$1.3 billion). These include
Php3 billion for health, Php17 billion for fisheries production, and Php47 for
tourism (World Bank 2005). Despite the presence of many water-related laws in
the Philippines, their enforcement is weak and beset with problems that include
inadequate resources, poor database, and weak cooperation among different agencies and local government units (LGUs). In the last few years, the government has
employed economic instruments such as pollution fines and environmental taxes. In
addition, the Philippines implemented Water Quality Code for the Local Government, under which local governments were given increased autonomy (World Bank
2005; ADB 2007).
2.3.6
Vietnam
Rapid urbanization and industrialization in coastal areas, port and marine transport
development, expansion in coastal tourism, and an increase in the number of oil
spills contribute to the deterioration of coastal water quality in Vietnam. Data on
surface water quality are poor in this country. However, limited testing reveals
rising pollution levels in downstream sections of the major rivers. The upstream
water quality of most rivers remains good, while downstream pollution mainly from
urban areas and industries affects the water quality.
Trends indicate that the levels of two primary pollution indicators, ammonianitrogen (NH4-N) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) vary considerably and
exceed national water quality class A standards by severalfold. Industrial and other
pollution add to the human waste from the population. Around 70 industrial parks
have been developed, and with more than 1,000 hospitals nationwide, some million
cubic meters of untreated wastewater is discharged from these sources alone per
day. According to MoNRE, there are about 4,000 enterprises discharging wastewater, of which 439 enterprises are the most serious. These enterprises need to be
reallocated or closed or will have to adapt cleaner technologies and treatment of
their wastewater (Aquastat 2011).
Rivers in Vietnams urban areas, especially major cities, are seriously polluted
by untreated industrial wastewater. Surveys conducted by the Institute of Tropical
Techniques and Environmental Protection show that the content of contaminants in
rivers in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Hai Phong, Hai Duong, Bac Giang, Hue, Da
Nang, Quang Nam, and Dong Nai are much higher than permissible levels
(Aquastat 2011). Untreated industrial wastewater discharging into rivers is the
main source of the pollution. According to the institute, industrial parks (IPs) and
export processing zones (EPZs) in the Southern Key Economic Zone discharge over
137,000 m3 of wastewater containing nearly 93 tons of waste into the Dong Nai, Thi
Vai, and Saigon Rivers each day. Meanwhile, 2 out of 12 IPs and EPZs in Ho Chi
39
Minh City, 3 out of 17 in Dong Nai, 2 out of 13 in Binh Duong, and none of the IPs
and EPZs in Ba Ria-Vung Tau have wastewater treatment facilities. According to
environmentalists, the Southern Key Economic Zone needs investment of 5.7
trillion VND (380 million USD) in 2005 and 13 trillion VND (867 million USD)
in 2010 to deal with environmental pollution (WEPA 2011b).
Within cities, lakes, streams, and canals increasingly serve as sinks for domestic
sewage and municipal and industrial wastes. Most of the lakes in Hanoi are
seriously polluted with high BOD levels. Similarly, 4 small rivers in Hanoi and
5 canals in HCM City have levels of DO as low as 02 mg/L and BOD levels as
high as 50200 mg/L.
In early 2000, about six million cases of six varieties of waterborne diseases
were registered and incurred direct costs of at least 400 billion VND. In addition to
the health costs, there are significant costs associated with the treatment of water
resources and the cleanup after oil spills. Total financial losses caused by a major oil
spill in 2001 were estimated at 250 billion VND (17 million USD), while costs for
cleaning up polluted waters and beaches reached 60 billion VND (4 million USD)
(WEPA 2011b).
2.3.7
Singapore
Given Singapores limited water resources, it is critical that water pollution and
quality are carefully monitored and regulated. The responsibility for this belongs to
the National Environment Agency (NEA), which regulates water pollution and
quality in Singapores sewerage system, as well as inland water bodies and coastal
areas. The control of soil pollution is also an important aspect in this regard, given
that pollutants in the soil are likely to make their way into the water system as
runoff or groundwater. Soil pollution control in Singapore primarily focuses on the
use of approved pesticides to combat termites in soil. Over the past 20 years,
Singapore has maintained an impressive environmental record, despite an increase
in industrialization and urbanization.
2.3.8
Central Asia
In Central Asia, compared with agriculture, water use by industry is low, but it is
considered the largest source of water pollution. The most highly polluting industries are construction, mining, and petroleum refining. The volume of industrial
waste was 168 million tons in 1998, of which more than half was generated in
Kazakhstan and one-third in Kyrgyzstan. Fortunately this waste is declining. The
mining industry has been the largest generator of industrial and toxic waste
throughout the subregion, which has more than 130 mining waste sites (ESCAP
2005).
40
The major pollution sources in the region are agrochemicals and insufficiently
treated effluents from municipal and industrial sewers. National reports also note
increased contamination of groundwater due to substandard management of municipal and industrial waste sites, especially in the mining industry. On average, from
1995 to 2001, 815 % of water samples failed to satisfy bacteriological requirements and 2040 % fell short of physical and chemical standards (UNECE/
UNESCAP 2004). Salinity and chemical contamination from agricultural drainage
water are also of significant concern in many parts of Central Asia, including
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
2.3.9
China
Chinas per capita water supply is 70 % lower than the global average, but its
demand for water is astronomical. Both industry and agriculture use large volume
of water and create massive water pollution. According to a long-term study
completed in 2011 by the Ministry of Environment Protection and the Chinese
Academy of Engineering, over 90 % of the groundwater in cities was polluted to
different degrees. This is highly alarming, as 70 % of Chinas population relies on
groundwater for their drinking water. In China, 320 million people are without
access to clean drinking water. Of 118 major cities, 64 had seriously contaminated
groundwater supplies and 190 million people are drinking water severely contaminated with hazardous chemicals (UNDP 2013; Burkhardt 2013).
Water quality trends in China suggest that poor water quality caused by pollution
is exacerbating the existing water scarcity problem in some areas and threatening
food security, economic development, and quality of life (Liu and Diamond 2005;
CAS 2007; World Bank 2007; Jiang 2009). Monitoring from 1991 to 2008 by the
State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) showed that the water
quality in the rivers in Northern China, especially the Hai and Liao, was significantly lower than those in the south (MEP 2009, 2010; World Bank 2001, 2006).
Water quality monitoring revealed an improvement from 1990 to 2008 in the south,
in the Yangtze and Pearl Rivers, although they still contain areas of very poor water
quality. The Yangtze River is one of Chinas most legendary rivers, but today it is
known for its pollution. In 2008, over 21 billion tons of wastewater 70 % of which
came from industrial sources were dumped into the Yangtze. The Yellow River,
Chinas iconic mother river, is severely overexploited. Parts of the river have run
dry, while the water is polluted and underground aquifers are severely stressed out.
Industrial pollution is the main threat to the Pearl River, which runs through
Guangdong province, the site of Chinas earliest factories. Industrial waste makes
up 60 % of all water emptied into the Pearl River, and clean drinking water is a
critical issue for this densely populated region. It is estimated that 13,000 petrochemical factories (out of a national total of 21,000) are located along the Yangtze
and Yellow rivers. Many of these freely dump their wastewater into the Yangtze,
threatening lives and health in villages such as Taicang.
41
Deterioration was also noted in the north from 1991 to 2005 (World Bank 2006;
Xie 2009; MEP 2009, 2010). Monitoring of 204 rivers in seven major river basins in
2009 found that 60 % of the river sections meet the SEPA national standards for
good (Class I, II, and III) water, meaning that they are suitable for aquaculture;
24 % can be classified as poor (Class IV and V), only suitable for agriculture; and
the remainder are highly polluted (below Class V) in terms of nitrates and BOD.
In 2010, among the 26 key state-controlled lakes and reservoirs, none of them
met Class I standards and only 21 % met Class II or III, while 38 % were inferior to
Class V. The major pollutants were nitrogen and phosphorus; more than half the
lakes suffered from eutrophication. Over the period from 2005 to 2009, water
quality in the rivers has improved (ESCAP 1999, 2000).
Poor environmental regulations, weak enforcement, and local corruption mean
that factories can discharge their wastewater directly into rivers and lakes.
According to Environment magazine, there are over 450 cancer villages in 29 out
of 31 provinces. Though industrial pollution cannot be absolutely confirmed as the
cause, there is a close link between the locations of cancer villages, factories, and
polluted rivers. Moreover, many hazardous chemicals that are restricted or banned
completely in Europe and elsewhere are not regulated in China. These chemicals
have already been recognized as having serious threats to the environment and
health, but in China they can still be used in large quantities and without oversight
(Burkhardt 2013).
2.3.10 Indonesia
The results of water quality monitoring in 30 rivers in Indonesia indicate that based
on national standards, most rivers cannot be considered sources of drinking water.
On the basis of BOD, only 21 % of samples meet the criteria for Class 1, with most
samples above 10 ppm and some as high as 100 ppm. The figures are similar for
COD and dissolved oxygen (DO), and the same applies to lake water quality
(WEPA 2011c).
2.3.11 Thailand
In Thailand, monitoring by the Pollution Control Department (PCD) revealed that
68 % of water bodies were suitable for agriculture and general consumption
(good and moderate quality), but no surface water was categorized as very
good quality (extra clean, suitable for aquatic animals and human consumption
after normal treatment). The variation between regions was wide. The surface water
bodies in the northern-central and southern regions are of particularly poor quality,
while water in the eastern region was fair and that in the northeastern region was
good. Concentration of BOD is almost higher than the standard. In a study of
42
15 waste disposal sites, 11 were found to have heavy metal (nickel, lead, and
mercury) contamination exceeding standard values. It is estimated that more than
200,000 tons of waste (BOD) is discharged into the gulf of Thailand annually.
Industrial pollution discharges to coastal waters, the heavy metal count, especially
mercury, have exceeded Thai water quality guidelines. In general, the implementation of regulations on the environment has suffered from lack of monitoring
activities and weak enforcement (Mukhopadhyay 2007).
The above discussion on the status of water pollution in India and other countries
in Asia clearly reflects that there is a great diversity in water pollution issues across
the region and it is difficult to identify a particular problem only in a certain
subregion (ESCAP 2000). Demographic changes, industrialization, and increased
use of agrochemicals have serious implications for water quality across Asia.
Appropriate monitoring program is required to manage these challenges.
Proactive policies for water quality improvement are emerging across Asia,
although many are in their premature level, and a unified framework has yet to
evolve. Many Asian countries are making major moves to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals, though the achievement is far from goals. Several countries
have already taken water quality monitoring measures; there experience could
guide the other nations in the region. Most countries have legislation that controls
water quality and the emission of pollutants to water bodies, based on concentrations of specific pollutants and dilution requirements.
Several countries are implementing large-scale and ambitious programs to
restore degraded water resources. The enforcement of water quality is particularly
difficult in emerging economies, where institutional capacities do not keep pace
with rapid industrialization (Kathuria and Sterner 2006). Economic instruments,
like taxation and reduction of subsidies, are in conflict with other development
goals. Moreover, monitoring is expensive and voluntary compliance is poor. Many
regulatory and economic options exist to address the problems; however, the
constraints like low institutional capacities, social pressure, political will, and
inadequate financial resources cannot be ignored (Jiang et al. 2011; Carr and
Neary 2008).
In this context, we should mention the most urgent challenges stated in a
comprehensive report for the Asian Development Bank. A major issue in preparing the Asian Water Development Outlook has been the paucity of data on all
aspects of water-related issues. Even when data were available, their reliability was
often unknown. The problem was further compounded by the presence of either
inconsistent national datasets or different data from various national sources on the
same parameters, and/or significant differences in many cases between national and
international datasets (Biswas and Seetharam 2008). Keeping these constraints in
mind, we have attempted to piece together the scattered information available from
different sources and documents to present a status of water pollution in Asia,
however.
References
43
References
ADB (2007) Asian water development outlook 2007: achieving water security for Asia, Asia
Pacific water forum. Asian Development Bank, Manila
ADB (2008) Islamic Republic of Pakistan country environment analysis. Asian Development
Bank, Manila
Aquastat (2011) FAOs information system on water and agriculture: Vietnam. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Geneva
Bhalla GS, Hazell P, Kerr J (1999) Prospects for Indias cereal supply and demand to 2020. Brief
no. 63. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC
Biswas AK, Seetharam KE (2008) Achieving water security for Asia. Int J Water Resour Dev 24
(1):145176
Burkhardt K (2013) Tips for drinking safe, clean water in China. Retrieved May 2013, from http://
www.echinacities.com/expat-corner/Tips-for-Drinking-Safe-Clean-Water-in-China
CAG (2011) CAG audit report no. 21 of 201112, Union Government (Scientific Department)
New Delhi
Carr GM, Neary JP (2008) Water quality for ecosystem and human health, 2nd edn. United
Nations Environment Programme, Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS)/Water
Programme, Burlington. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/gemswater/Portals/24154/publi
cations/pdfs/water_quality_human_health.pdf
CAS (2007) Chinese Academy of Science, China sustainable development strategy report 2007:
water governance and innovation. Scientific Press, Beijing
Chhabra A, Manjunath KR, Panigrahy S (2010) Non-point source pollution in Indian agriculture:
estimation of nitrogen losses from rice crop using remote sensing and GIS. Int J Appl Earth
Observ Geoinfo 12:190200
Chowdary VM, Rao NH, Sarma PBS (2005) Decision support framework for assessment of nonpoint-source pollution of groundwater in large irrigation projects. Agric Water Manage
75:194225
CPCB (20022003) Assessment of industrial pollution. Programme of objective series, PROBES
92/2002-03. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CPCB (2003) Water quality in India: status and trend (19902001). Monitoring of Indian Aquatic
Resources Series, MINARS/20/20012002. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CPCB (2008) Status of water supply, wastewater generation and treatment in Class-I cities and
Class-II towns of India. Control of Urban Pollution Series, CUPS/70/2009-10. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CPCB (2009) Status of water quality in India2009. Monitoring of Indian Aquatic Resources
Series, MINARS/2009-10. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CPCB (2010) Status of water quality in India 2010. Monitoring of Indian National Aquatic
Resources Series, MINARS/2010-11. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
ESCAP (1999) ESCAP population data sheet, population and development indicators for Asia and
the Pacific. United Nations ESCAP, Bangkok
ESCAP (2000) State of the environment in Asia and the Pacific. United Nations ESCAP, Bangkok
ESCAP (2005) State of the environment in Asia and the Pacific. United Nations ESCAP, Bangkok
Evans AEV, Hanjra MA, Jiang Y, Qadir M, Drechsel P (2012) Water quality: assessment of the
current situation in Asia. Int J Water Resour Dev 28(2):195216
Frost FJ, Tollestrup K, Craun GF, Raucher R, Chwirka J, Stomp J (2002) Evaluation of costs and
benefits of a lower arsenic MCL. J Am Water Works Assoc 94(3):7182
Global Water Partnership (2011) Cleaning up Sri Lankas water. Retrieved from http://www.gwp.
org/gwp-in-action/South-Asia/News-and-Activities-GWP-South-Asia/Cleaning-up-Sri-Lankaswater/, January 2013
Jiang Y (2009) Chinas water scarcity. J Environ Manage 90(11):31853196
44
Jiang Y, Jin L, Lin T (2011) Higher water tariffs for less river pollution: evidence from the Min
River and Fuzhou City in China. China Econ Rev 22:183195
Kathuria V, Sterner T (2006) Monitoring and enforcement: is two-tier regulation robust? A case
study of Ankleshwar, India. Ecol Econ 57:477493
Kaur R, Wani SP, Singh AK, Lal K (2012) Wastewater production, treatment and use in India,
Country report India, India. Retrieved from http://www.ais.unwater.org/ais/pluginfile.php/356/
mod_page/content/111/CountryReport_India.pdf
Khan S, Hanjra MA (2009) Footprints of water and energy inputs in food production: global
perspectives. Food Policy 34:130140
Kinniburgh DG, Smedley PA (eds) (2001) Arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh.
BGS technical report WC/00/19. British Geological Survey/Department of Public Health
Engineering, Keyworth/Dhaka
Liu J, Diamond J (2005) Chinas environment in a globalizing world. Nature 435:11791186
Maria A (2003) The costs of water pollution in India. Paper presented at the conference on market
development of water & waste technologies through Environmental Economics, Delhi
MEP (2009) Report on the state of the environment in China 2008. Ministry of Environmental
Protection, The Peoples Republic of China. Retrieved 6 Feb 2012, from http://english.mep.
gov.cn/standards_reports/soe/soe2009/201104/t20110411_208976.htm
MEP (2010) Report on the state of the environment in China 2009. Ministry of Environmental
Protection, The Peoples Republic of China. Retrieved 6 Feb 2012, from http://english.mep.
gov.cn/standards_reports/soe/soe2009/201104/t20110411_208976.htm
MOEF (2009) State of environment report. Report, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. Retrieved on January 2013 from http://moef.nic.in/soer/2009/SoE%
20Report_2009.pdf
Mukhopadhyay K (2007) Trade and environment in Thailand: an emerging economy. Serials
Publication, New Delhi
Murty MN, Kumar S (2011) Water pollution in India: an economic appraisal. In: India infrastructure report 2011: water policy and performance for sustainable development. IDFC and Oxford
Pak-EPA (2005) State of the environment report. Commissioned by Pakistan Environmental
Protection Agency, Ministry of Environment, Government of Pakistan. Retrieved from
http://www.environment.gov.pk/Publications.htm%20
Park JH, Duan L, Kim B, Mitchell MJ, Shibata H (2010) Potential effects of climate change and
variability on watershed biogeochemical processes and water quality in Northeast Asia.
Environ Int 36:212225
Rajaram T, Das A (2008) Water pollution by industrial effluents in India: discharge scenarios and
case for participatory ecosystem specific local regulation. Futures 40:5669
Sridhar KS, Kumar S (2012) Indias urban environment: air and water pollution and pollution
abatement. MPRA paper no. 43810, Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Retrieved January 2013,
from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/43810/
UNDP (2013) China national human development report 2013 sustainable and liveable cities:
toward ecological civilization. Report, UNDP China & China Academy of Social Science
UNECE/UNESCAP (2004) Strengthening cooperation for rational and efficient use of water and
energy resources in Central Asia. United Nations, New York
UNEP (2002) Global environmental outlook 3(GEO-3) past, present and future perspectives.
United Nations Environment Programme Earthscan Publications Ltd., London
UNESCAP (1999) ESCAP Population data sheet, population and development indicators for Asia
and the Pacific, 1999. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
Pacific, Bangkok
WDI (2012) World development indicators 2012. World Bank, Washington, DC
WEPA (2011a) State of water environmental issues: Malaysia. Water Environment Partnership in
Asia. Retrieved 23 Nov 2011, from http://www.wepa-db.net/policies/state/malaysia/overview.
htm
References
45
WEPA (2011b) State of water environmental issues: Vietnam. Water Environment Partnership in
Asia. Retrieved 23 Nov 2011, from http://www.wepa-db.net/policies/state/vietnam/overview.
htm
WEPA (2011c) State of water environmental issues: Indonesia. Water Environment Partnership in
Asia. Retrieved 23 Nov 2011, from http://www.wepa-db.net/policies/state/indonesia/indone
sia.htm. Accessed 23 Nov 2011
World Bank (2001) China: air, land and water. World Bank, Washington, DC
World Bank (2005) Chapter 7: Water supply and sanitation. In Philippines: meeting infrastructure
challenges. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 107137
World Bank (2006) China: water quality management. Policy and institutional considerations.
World Bank, Washington, DC
World Bank (2007) Cost of pollution in China: economic estimates of physical damages. World
Bank, Washington, DC
World Commission on Water (1999) Worlds rivers in crisis some are dying; others could die.
World Water Council. Retrieved from http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/Vision/
6902B03438178538C125683A004BE974.htm
Xie J (2009) Addressing Chinas water scarcity: recommendations for selected water resource
management issues. World Bank, Washington, DC
Chapter 3
The Methodology
In this chapter, we shall present the methodology which will be used in this work.
The framework is an extension of the basic inputoutput model of Leontief (1951).
Inputoutput model primarily deals with the methodology of analyzing
interdependence among the different sectors of the economy. Thus, it becomes a
tool to measure inter-sectoral and interrelationship. In inputoutput analysis, the
economy is broken up into sectors and flows of goods and services among these
sectors are recorded to study the relationship among them in a systematic and
quantitative manner.
3.1
The Basic InputOutput Model
The basic inputoutput model can be explained by considering a simple hypothetical economy consisting of n sectors. These n sectors would be interdependent
in so far as they would purchase inputs from and sell outputs to each other.
The inputoutput matrix presents inter-industry flows of intermediate inputs
among the various sectors of the economy. A column records all the inputs required
from the various sectors in the production process of a particular activity, while a
row describes the flows from a particular sector to different sectors. A technology
coefficient matrix is derived from the inputoutput transaction matrix by dividing
all elements in the input column by the output level of a sector represented by the
column. Thus, if A (aij) is the inputoutput coefficient matrix, then a typical
element aij represents the amount of input i required to produce one unit of output
j. The direct inputoutput coefficient matrix is, of course, the core of the model.
Since total output is equal to inter-industry sales plus final demand, we have
X AX Y
3:1
This gives the solution for the output vector X given the final demand vector
Y and the technical matrix A.
47
48
3 The Methodology
Here
A n n matrix of inputoutput coefficient matrix
X n 1 vector of output
Y n 1 vector of final demand
I n n identity matrix
From (3.1) we derived Eq. (3.2):
X I A1 Y
3:2
(I A)1 is the Leontief inverse. Leontief inverse is the total (direct and indirect)
input requirements.
3.2
Model I
3.2.1
Pollution Model
The inputoutput framework has been extended here to account for water pollution
generation.
To study water pollution generation associated with inter-industry activity, let us
consider a matrix of pollution output coefficient, denoted by, W [Wkj], each
element of which is the amount of water pollutant type k, (e.g., chloride, sulfide)
generated per rupees worth of industry js output. Hence, the level of water
pollution associated with a given vector of total outputs can be expressed as
R WX
3:3
where R is the vector of pollution level. Hence, by multiplying the traditional

Leontiefs inverse matrix (I A)1, we can compute R0 , that is, the total pollution
of each type generated by the economy directly and indirectly by different sectors.
R W I A1
0
3:4
Here
R0 is the direct and indirect water pollution coefficient matrix of different sectors
(k n)
W is the direct water pollution coefficient matrix of different sectors (k n)
(I A)1 is the Leontief matrix multiplier of different sectors (n n)
3.3 Model II
3.3
49
Model II
3.3.1
Model II A
The model has further being extended to incorporate pollution abatement cost.
Incorporating the cost data into the inputoutput framework applied in our present
work, for assessment of abatement cost of direct and indirect pollution and its
impacts on output and prices of the economy, is the problem dealt herein.
As first step towards solving the problem, attempts have been made to extend the
conventional inputoutput framework to cover not only production and consumption of ordinary goods and services but also generation and elimination of water
pollution based on Leontiefs work in 1970 (Leontief 1970). It has been achieved by
introducing an additional row for water pollutants giving the amount of pollution
produced by each sector per unit of output and a column for pollution abatement
giving the amount of input required from each sector. And this can be presented in
the matrix form as formally described below:

I A11 A12
X1
Y1
3:5
A21 I A22
X2
Y2

X1
I A11 A12 1
Y1
3:6
X2
A21 I A22
Y2
where:
A11 is the original inputoutput matrix (without abatement).
A12 is the input structure coefficients of pollution abatement activities.
A21 is the matrix of direct pollution output coefficients.
A22 is the pollution output coefficients matrix for the pollution abatement activities.
X1, Y1 are respectively the original output and final demand vectors (without
abatement).
X2, Y2 are respectively the total output and final demand for the abatement sector.
A point of discrepancy relating to a negative sign in the last row led to the
formulation of the model from different perspectives (Qayum 1991). The discrepancy arises because
A21 X1 I A22 X2
should have resulted in Y2. As [I A22]X2 denote the total amount of pollution
eliminated and sum of [A21 X1] denote the total amount of water pollutants
generated by the economy, the total amount tolerated, that is, Y2, given by the
difference between the former two should have a negative sign.
The model thus formulated can be dealt with in a straightforward manner by
introducing a sector of clean water instead of a pollution-producing sector with
50
3 The Methodology
negative entries and a pollution abatement sector. With this alternative designation,
X2 will be the total amount of clean water produced through pollution abatement
activities. This X2 is the same as in the previous treatment, because the amount of
water pollution eliminated is equivalent to the amount of clean water produced.
And the amount of final delivery of clean water, however, is the opposite of the
amount of pollution tolerated by final consumers. That is, if we denote the amount
of final delivery of clean water by Y2*, it will be equivalent to Y2 of the
earlier case.
With this slight reformulation, the discrepancy arising due to the negative sign
gets solved and the model stands at the same place, as in Eq. (3.6), and the
interpretation of A11, A12, A21, A22, X2, and Y2 becomes as follows:
A11 is the original inputoutput matrix (without abatement).
A12 is the input structure coefficients of clean water sector.
A21 is the matrix of direct clean water output coefficients.
A22 is the clean water output coefficient matrix for clean water production and X2,
Y2 are respectively the total output and final demand for the clean water sector.
Then from the model, the impact of the abatement cost on the output can be
studied.
3.3.2
Model II B
For expressing the effect of pollution abatement cost on prices of different goods
and services, the original inputoutput model has similarly been extended to
account for the clean water sector, as described above in case of output model,
and formally presented below:

1
P1
I A11 A21
v1
P2
A12 I A22
v2
3:7
where:
P1 is the prices of different goods and services.
P2 is the prices of producing one unit of clean water.
V1 is the value added coefficients of different products.
V2 is the value added in clean water sector per unit of clean water produced.
A11, A12, A21, A22 has the same interpretation as discussed earlier in case of output
model.
References
51
References
Leontief W (1951) The structure of American economy, 191939. Oxford University Press,
New York
Leontief W (1970) Environmental repercussion and the economic structure: empirical results of
input-output approach. Rev Econ Stat 52(3):260271
Qayum A (1991) A reformulation of the Leontief pollution model. Econ Syst Res 3(4):428430
Chapter 4
Data Sources and Processing
To work with the various types of water pollutants generated by the different
industries of India using the methodology as developed in Chap. 3, we need the
appropriate data. The main focus of this chapter is to discuss the available data. Most
data are not available in the required form, and therefore, necessary adjustments have
to be made to suit the purpose of the work. The major data required for the work are:
(a) The inputoutput table of India
(b) The different types of water pollutants generated by the different industries of
India
(c) The abatement cost for various water-polluting industries
4.1
InputOutput Data
The study has used the inputoutput table of India for the year 20062007 recently
prepared by the CSO (2011). The inputoutput table of 20062007 consists of
130*130 sectors. For our study, the inputoutput table has been aggregated into
38 sectors. The list of the sectors is shown in Table 4.1. Sectors which have
relatively high level of water pollution generation (agriculture, livestock, milk
and milk products, leather, paper, textiles, chemicals, food products, etc.) are
presented as separate sectors. But the other sectors have been aggregated. The
aggregation scheme is presented in Appendix 4.A.1.
4.2
Water Pollution Data
Data on water pollution are scanty and are not available in the required form.
However, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), India, and the Bureau of
Indian Standard (BIS) publish certain documents which have been of great use in
53
54
Table 4.1 List of the sectors for the year 20062007

1. Agriculture
2. Other agriculture
3. Milk and milk products
4. Livestock
5. Fishing
6. Coal and lignite
7. Mining and quarrying
8. Sugar
9. Oil and vanaspati
10. Tea, coffee, and beverages
11. Food product
12. Cotton textile
13. Woolen and silk textiles
14. Jute, hemp, and mesta textiles
15. Miscellaneous textile products
16. Wood and wood products
17. Paper and paper products
18. Leather and leather products
19. Rubber products
Source: CSO (2011)
20. Plastic products

21. Petroleum and coal tar products
22. Inorganic heavy chemicals
23. Organic heavy chemicals
24. Fertilizers
25. Pesticides
26. Paints, varnishes, and lacquers
27. Other chemicals
28. Synthetic fibers, resin
29. Other nonmetallic mineral products
30. Iron and steel
31. Machinery and metal products
32. Electrical machinery
33. Transport equipment
34. Other machinery
35. Construction
36. Electricity gas and water supply
37. Transport service and communication
38. Other services
attaining the different types of water pollutants generated from different industries.
We have obtained 10 types of water pollution data from this source (CPCB 2006a).
The work is constrained by the fact that the sectors mentioned in these documents
have to be matched to the corresponding inputoutput classification. The water
pollutants generated by the different Indian industries are mentioned below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Suspended solids (SS)

Dissolved solids (DS)
Chloride
Sulfide
Zinc
Phenol
Oil and grease
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Other pollutants such as nitrogen, chromium, cyanide, alkalinity
Although data for the 38 sectors were not available, the 38 sectors classification
will give us not only direct pollution status but also indirect pollution. Moreover, it
is quite likely that water pollution is also not directly generated from all 38 sectors
(e.g., service sectors, communication, etc.). In that case, the 38 sector classifications
will provide a good view of the indirect contribution.
4.2 Water Pollution Data
4.2.1
55
Derivation of Different Types of Water Pollutants
We have used the water pollutant data for a number of sectors directly from the
documents published by the Central Pollution Control Board. But for some sectors,
these data have been calculated on the basis of available information following the
procedure mentioned below (Chakraborty et al. 2001). For each sector, the following information of pollution generation has been collected.
Amount of wastewater in liter
ton of production
(b) Amount of different types of water pollutants W per liter Amount of
different types of pollutants in mg
liter of wastewater
(c) Total amount of production of each sectors (P) in tons
(a) Flow of wastewater F
From these parameters, we have been able to derive the total amount of
different types of water pollution generation by different sectors, using the following steps:
1. Total amount of wastewater flow in liters (F) F F*P
2. Total amount of each types of water pollutants (W ) W F*W
To illustrate the method of calculation of pollution generation of a composite
industry, we can use the beverage industry as an example. Beverage industry is a
composite industry comprising many units, but due to the limited availability of
data, we have used soft drinks, breweries, and distilleries industries as representative of the sector. Here, the combined wastewater characteristics have been derived
by giving weights, with respect to their production level and then arriving at an
average for the three industries considered. It has been so done due to the
nonavailability of data of the other industries (Table 4.2).
With this in mind, we present the construction of the dataset required for the study.
4.2.1.1
Agriculture
Agriculture is the backbone of the Indian economy. Although agriculture contributes only 21 % of Indias GDP, its importance in the countrys economic, social,
and political fabric goes well beyond this indicator (World Bank 2011). The sector
plays a vital role in the development of India with over 60 % of the countrys
population deriving their living from it. Most of the industries also depend upon the
agriculture sector for their raw materials (IBEF 2013).
We have considered rice, wheat, and pulse in agriculture sector. The rice
obtained from milling pretreated paddy is considered as parboiled rice, whereas
rice obtained from milling of untreated paddy is considered as raw rice or white
rice. About 60 % of total production of paddy is parboiled in India. Parboiling is
thus an important industry (CPCB 20082009).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Milk and milk products
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Mining and quarrying
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Tea, coffee, and beverages
Food products
Cotton textile
Woolen and silk textile
Jute, hemp, and mesta textiles
Miscellaneous textile products
Wood and wood products
Paper and paper products
Leather and leather products
Rubber products
Plastic products
Petroleum and coal tar products
Inorganic heavy chemicals
Organic heavy chemicals
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Paints, varnishes, and lacquers
Other chemicals
Synthetic fibers, resin
SS
21,456.933
6.940
1,971.864
1,798.830
8.410
0.000
113.270
37.290
32.055
154.139
68.323
3,882.613
211.370
275.000
360.000
0.000
653.400
387.000
81.720
0.000
302.410
15.900
160.770
330.200
90.000
20.700
0.001
0.000
DS
0.000
1.160
3,049.51
535.660
0.000
0.439
240.910
148.500
0.000
3,734.09
0.000
54,651.42
518.570
0.123
77.460
0.000
0.000
558.750
649.120
81.000
863.760
580.750
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
510.000
0.000
Chloride
0.000
0.000
276.710
0.000
0.000
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
500.000
643.000
900.150
0.000
0.000
562.500
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
91.200
0.000
0.004
0.000
Sufide
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.073
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
230.000
376.000
490.000
0.000
0.000
4.450
10.168
0.000
110.770
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
Oil/grease
1,547.418
0.940
763.300
146.280
3.670
0.000
23.720
12.963
33.000
0.000
91.297
0.000
15.290
5.004
6.900
0.000
0.000
0.000
12.900
0.000
880.380
0.000
170.82
0.000
0.000
23.400
0.000
0.000
Phenol
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.792
0.000
0.000
1.620
0.000
0.000
2.000
1.400
0.500
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
10.330
0.000
50.660
0.000
0.000
10.800
0.000
0.000
Zinc
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.700
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Others
7,012.000
0.007
1,833.610
2,721.920
2.320
0.082
0.000
15.120
0.000
0.000
0.000
179.388
11.552
5.006
749.470
0.000
967.770
250.725
25.190
0.000
0.000
93.315
20.460
228.900
30.780
0.000
0.000
0.000
Table 4.2 Volume of the different types of water pollutants across industries in India during 20062007 (thousand tons)
BOD
57,350.160
6.260
11,256.771
5,364.681
16.300
0.000
6.270
87.780
186.000
2,105.471
57.631
302.000
180.600
350.000
580.000
0.000
498.300
116.427
512.750
27.000
100.540
90.000
735.000
0.000
87.000
70.500
174.000
0.000
COD
89,822.409
15.100
24,779.727
29,548.974
34.840
0.000
0.000
175.560
275.675
4,580.545
98.703
17,274.733
666.200
690.000
1,278.000
0.000
682.110
465.000
982.530
67.500
251.630
267.000
216.900
0.000
396.000
8.820
993.000
0.000
56
4
Other nonmetallic mineral products 50.130

Iron and steel
978.000
Machinery and metal products
0.000
Electrical machinery
0.000
Transport equipment
0.000
Other machinery
0.000
Construction
0.000
Electricity gas and water supply
169,781.57
Transport services and
0.000
communication
38 Other services
0.000
Source: Authors estimate from various sources
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
0.000
170.810
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.065
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
32.258
106.20
0.000
0.000
211.98
0.000
0.000
0.000
20.002
123.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000 0.000
37.37
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
327.000
360.000
0.000
0.000
720.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
30.044
816.000
112.020
0.000
0.000
224.010
0.000
50.100
0.000

57
58
Table 4.3 Total volume of pollutants for agriculture sector (thousand tons)
BOD
Wheat
9.918
Pulse
0.004
Rice revised
57,340.23
Total agriculture
57,350.15
Source: Authors estimate
COD
24.370
0.006
89,798.03
89,822.40
TSS
5.100
0.003
21,451.83
21,456.93
Oil and grease

0.141
0.0003
1,547.27
1,547.41
To calculate the total volume of pollution from these sectors, we have collected
the information on total area and water requirements under rice, pulse, and wheat
production. We assumed that parboiled rice makes up 60 % of the total rice
production. Total rice and wheat production in India was 93.45 million tons in
2006 (milled rice production, GOI 2011a) and 70 million tons in 2004 (GOI 2011a),
respectively. The wastewater calculation was then calculated based on the 60 % of
total rice production, that is, 56.01 million ton. On the other hand, pulse production
in India was 14 million tons in 20062007 (GOI 2011a), and its water requirement
(assuming a 1/5 water requirement that of cereals) was 31,055.34 L. Lastly, total
water requirement in wheat production in India was 51,758.90 L (CPCB 2008
2009). On the basis of all these information, we have estimated the volume of
pollutants for the agriculture sector which is given in Table 4.3.
4.2.1.2
Other Agriculture
In this sector, we consider only cashew nut and cocoa production only. Cashew nut
processing industries are one of the promising sectors that produce a valuable
commodity exported to Gulf, European, and Western countries. There are two
commonly followed methods of cashew nut processing: roasting process and
steam (roasting) cooking process. Since these industries are small with cottage
category units, there is no conventional and techno-economically cost-effective
pollution abatement systems like those in operation elsewhere (CPCB 2007a).
Since the cashew nut cooking process is a batch process, the quantity of the
water discharge from the cooker per batch was collected and measured in liter per
batch. The wastewater discharge from the quenching of cashew nut in the roasting
process was collected over a specific period using a stopwatch and the discharge
rate was then calculated in liter/h. Since the cashew nut process was limited only for
few hours in a day, the total wastewater generation load per 100 kg of cashew nut
cooked was calculated (CPCB 2007a).
Groundwater samples in and around the cashew nut processing units were also
collected and analyzed to study the influence of wastewater discharges by the units
on the ground. All the wastewater samples were analyzed for pH, TSS, TDS, oil and
grease, BOD, COD, and phenolic compounds (represented as phenols). The actual
domestic water consumption by the units was assessed with the help of the
information by the respective unit management.

Table 4.4 Rate of pollution
from processing units of
cashew nut
59
Quench mg/L
pH
7.7
TSS
1,645
TDS
3,262
OG
1,734
BOD
7,812
COD
16,195
Source: CPCB (2007a)
Cooker mg/L
6.3
535
9,722
38
3,900
12,040
We have estimated the volume of water pollution on the basis of production. In

20032004, the cashew nut production was 5,350,000 metric tons (DCCD 2011).
The pollution generation is from the two processing unit of cashew nut which are
quenching and cooker. Table 4.4 shows the rate of pollution release per liter. Using
this dataset we have calculated the total volume of pollution given in Table 4.2.
4.2.1.3
Milk and Milk Products
According to the National Dairy Development Board, India is probably the only
country which has had a steady increase in milk production and emerged as the
largest milk-producing country among all the tropical countries in the world. India
is the worlds largest producer of dairy products by volume and has the worlds
largest dairy herd. The country accounts for more than 13 % of the worlds total
milk production and is also the worlds largest consumer of dairy products, consuming almost all of its own milk production. As the country consumes almost all
of its own milk production, India was neither an active importer nor an exporter of
dairy products prior to year 2000. However, since the implementation of Operation
Flood program, the situation changed significantly, and imports of dairy products
are reduced to very small quantities. From 2001, India has become a net exporter of
dairy products (IUF 2011).
Dairy industrial facilities are responsible for the release of huge quantities of
wastewater, often in the order of thousands of cubic meters/day (Banu et al. 2007).
The principal components of dairy wastewater are milk, milk fractions, and milk
products. About 90 % of BOD in dairy processing waste comes from these
materials (CPCB 19921993). The relatively high concentrations of organic matter
contained in dairy wastewater have been implicated in a number of pollution issues
(Banu et al. 2007). We have collected the information of BOD, COD, and SS for the
dairy industry from the CPCB document (CPCB 19921993). It provides the
estimates by CPCB experts and other experts in India (Table 4.5). The rate of
generation of BOD, COD, and SS released from the dairy plant is at the higher end
according to the CPCB estimates compared to that of other literatures in India.
To estimate the total amount of BOD, COD, and SS, we have used the data for
milk production in India for the year 20062007. The amount of milk production in
India was 102.86 million tons for the year 20062007 (GOI 2013). The total amount
of pollution is calculated on the basis of the rate of the water pollutants parameters
and milk production given in Table 4.6.
60
Table 4.5 Average generation of water pollutants from the dairy plant in India (mg/L)
BOD
Literature
10,483
CPCB
110,360.5
Source: CPCB (19921993)
COD
18,892
242,938.5
SS
6,788
19,332
Others
60.85
80.5
Table 4.6 Water pollution from milk and milk products in 20062007 (thousand tons)
BOD
CPCB
11,256.771
4.2.1.4
COD
24,779.727
SS
1,971.864
Others
8.211
Rubber and Rubber Products
Since the establishment of the first rubber products manufacturing unit in 1921, the
rubber products manufacturing industry of India has experienced dramatic growth
and expansion, particularly during the post-independence era. It has achieved overall
development by expanding its size, spatial distribution, technological improvement,
and more prominently the wide range of products manufactured (CPCB 2007b).
The rubber industry plays an important sector role in the Indian national economy
with around 6,000 unit comprising 30 large-scale, 300 medium-scale, and around
5,600 SSI/tiny sector units. It manufactures 35,000 rubber products and employs
400 hundred thousand people, including around 22,000 technically qualified support
personnel. It has a turnover of Rs. 200 billions and contributes Rs. 40 billions to the
national exchequer through taxes, duties, and other levies. India is the third largest
producer, fourth largest consumer of natural rubber, and fifth largest consumer of
natural and synthetic rubber in the world. In addition, India is the worlds largest
manufacturer of reclaimed rubber (India Finance and Investment Guide 2013).
The rubber products in India according to the end products for the year 2004
2005 are shown in Table 4.7. The wastewater generation from these end products is
categorized into four components: tire and tube industry, latex based, molded and
extruded, and reclaimed.
Rubber processing industry consumes large volumes of water and chemicals,
producing enormous amounts of wastewater. The discharge of this wastewater to
the environment without proper treatment causes serious consequences. The industrial water consumption varies widely mainly due to different cooling water systems
adopted by tire and tube industry. The consumption variations are mainly due to the
use of the once-through cooling water in certain plants as compared to the recirculation cooling in others. The wastewater from the process areas includes water and
steam leakages, overflows, runoff from oil storage areas, soapstone solution spillages,
and wash down and runoff from process or storage areas. Water leakages occur at
various water-cooled machinery units including mills, banburies, extruders, and tread
cooling tanks. In general, wastewater problems arising from compounding, extrusion,
molding, and curing operations in tube manufacturing are very similar to that of the
tire manufacturing (CPCB 2007b). The wastewater generation in per kg of raw
materials according to each stage of rubber production is given in Table 4.8.

Table 4.7 Rubber products
in metric tons (20042005)
61
Broad categories
Tire and tube industry
Auto tires and tubes
Cycle tires and tube
Molded and extruded
Camel back
Footwear
Belts and hoses
Latex based
Latex foam
Reclaimed
Cables and wires
Battery boxes
Dipped goods
Others
Total
Source: CPCB document (2007b)
Table 4.8 Generation of

wastewater from rubber
products (L)
Tire and tube industry

Molded and extruded
Latex based
Reclaimed
Source: CPCB (2007b)
Table 4.9 Types of water

pollutant from rubber
product (mg/L)
Rubber
products
pH
SS
Tire and tube 8.5
314
Molded
9.9
140
extruded
fabricated
Latex based
8.8
225
Reclaimed
8.75 520
Total
35.95 1,199
Total
443,894.93
116,368.23
49,415.85
97,377.775
50,266.599
32,722.452
3,463.505
13,177.669
33,641.415
76,250.558
916,579
3.5
1.25
20
0.3
TDS
BOD
2,127.5 184.6
2,175 60
COD
270.4
182
Oil/
grease
37.9
19.5
2,590 160
350
18
2,312.5 824
4,700 1,027.5
9,205 1,228.6 5,502.4 1,102.9
We have also collected the information from the CPCB documents (2007b)
about several water pollutants that are generated from the four broad categories of
rubber production (Table 4.9).
These are the information we have used to calculate the water pollution parameters in rubber products sector in 20062007 which is presented in Table 4.2.
4.2.1.5
Tea, Coffee, and Beverages
This sector is a combined sector. Here we have estimated water pollutants only for
coffee and beverages and used it for the group. In instant coffee manufacturing,
62
Table 4.10 Generation of wastewater estimation from coffee production plant

Less than 4 ha
410 ha
Number of coffee plant
131,079
6,564
Kilo liter per plant
207
277
Wastewater (kL)
27,133,353
1,818,228
Source: Computed by the authors from CPCB (2006a)
Table 4.11 Water pollution
from coffee processing and
cultivation (mg/L)
BOD (5 days)
COD
SS
TDS
Oil and grease
pH
Greater than 10 ha
2,650
708
1,876,200
Coffee processing
646
3,702
90
2,110
8.5
9.43
Total
140,293
30,827,781
Cultivation
6,500
25,000
5,000
25,000
5
wastewater is generated from spent coffee waste. This wastewater is acidic in

nature and has BOD, 6001,000 mg/L; COD, 2,50010,000 mg/L; and SS, 100
1,000 mg/L. The wastewater generation is about 300 KLD which is generally 50
55 % of water use (CPCB 2006a).
We have collected various information to calculate the wastewater generation
and water pollutants generated from coffee processing. The generation of wastewater from coffee plant is documented in Table 4.10. In India, the coffee production
plants are mostly small in size (less than 4 ha) as seen from Table 4.10, and the
generation of wastewater depends on the area of the coffee production plant.
Table 4.11 explains the different effluents generated from coffee processing and
coffee cultivation. For calculating the total water pollution from each parameter, all
the information is used along with total coffee production in India, that is, 288,000
metric tons in 20062007 (Coffee Board 2010).
We obtained from Nagaraj and Kumar (2008) that 3.20 billion liters (2006
2007) of alcohol production release 4.5 billion liters of wastewater. Using the
information from CPCB 20022003a, we could get the data on the different types
of pollutants generated from beverages. Together with the water pollutant parameters generated from coffee and beverages, we calculate the total volume of
different types of water pollution generated from tea, coffee, and beverages
which is presented in Table 4.2. It should be mentioned that we could estimate
water pollutants for SS, DS, BOD, COD, and pH for this group.
4.2.1.6
Livestock
The livestock sector plays an important role in the Indian economy. Estimates show
that the GDP from livestock sector is at Rs. 1,239 billion in 20042005 which
makes up 24.7 % share in agriculture and allied GDP. It also provides nutritive food
63
(rich in animal protein) and generates employment in the rural sector, particularly
among the landless, small, marginal farmers and women. Moreover, since the
distribution of livestock wealth in India is more egalitarian than that of land, from
the equity and livelihood perspectives, livestocks are considered an important
component in poverty alleviation programs (Chacko et al. 2010).
With growing annual per capita meat consumption, high meat export potential,
and large non-utilization of potential of animal meat, the development of the meat
industry in India is necessary. However, this sector is controlled by existing market
forces and not by the government. Thus, its unorganized nature is a main feature of
the industry, and as a result, it has not been able to use the state of the art of
technology available in global meat market (Chacko et al. 2010).
In India, the meat production in 2005 was 2.6 million tons and poultry production was 2.3 million tons (Livestock Census 2011). Total meat and poultry production is equivalent to 4.9 million tons in 2005. The wastes from slaughter houses and
packaging houses are similar chemically to domestic sewage but are considerably
more concentrated. They are almost wholly organic, chiefly having dissolved and
suspended material. The principal deleterious effect of these wastes on streams and
water courses is their deoxygenation. The typical characteristics of the effluent
coming out from the slaughter house are as follows.
Features of the Parameters
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Quantity 2,000 cu.m/day

Total solids 4,000 to 5,000 mg/L
BOD 4,000 mg/L
COD 8,000 mg/L
pH 6 to 7
Source: GOI (2011a)

At present, there are no official norms for classification of slaughter houses.
However, depending upon the type of animals slaughtered, the slaughter houses are
classified into the following.
Large animal (i.e., cattle, buffalo, etc.) slaughter house
Goat and sheep slaughter house
Pig slaughter house
Poultry slaughter house (2011b)
In order to assess the variations in pollution load with respect to the number of
animals slaughtered, bovines and goat and sheep slaughter houses are further
classified into three categories.1 Large-scale slaughter houses are located mainly
in big cities, medium-scale slaughter houses in district/towns, while the small-scale
slaughter houses are scattered all over the country.
1
Large scale more than 200 large animals, i.e., bovines per day or more than 1,000 goat and
sheep per day.
Medium scale more than 50 and up to 200 large animals or more than 300 up to 1,000 goat and
sheep per day.
Small scale less than 50 bovines and 300 goat and sheep per day.
64
Liquid Waste/Effluent
During the abovementioned operations, the waste generated is of both liquid and
solid nature. The liquid waste should be washed away by safe potable and constant
supply of freshwater at adequate pressure throughout the premises of slaughtering.
The wastewater from slaughter house is heavy in pollution, and, therefore, it should
not be allowed to mix with the municipal drain system without pretreatment
meeting sewage standards as per the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). The detailed
discussion on treatment is given in the cost section.
Using production information for the year 20062007 along with wastewater
generation available from different sources helps us estimate the total volume of
water pollutants from this sector which is shown in Table 4.2.
4.2.1.7
Cotton Textile
Textile is another sector which occupies an important position and plays a vital role
in the Indian economy. India is the worlds second largest textile producer after
China, accounting for about 15 % of the world production of cotton textiles. This is
one of the major sources of foreign exchange earnings for India. Currently the
industry accounts for 4 % of GDP, 20 % of industrial production, and slightly more
than 30 % of export earnings. About 38 million are employed in the Indian textile
industry (USITC 2001).
The Indian textile and apparel industry is diversified and has the capacity to
provide a wide variety of textiles to meet different market needs. The broad division
of textile industry includes natural fibers (cotton, jute, wool, and silk) and
man-made fibers and synthetic blends. Out of the total textile production, cotton
covers 70 %, while wool, silk, and jute 10 % and man-made synthetic 20 %. There
are almost 1,400 spinning mills and 280 compost mills. The production of apparel
in India was, until recently, reserved for the small-scale industry (SSI) sector.
Apparel units with larger investments were allowed to operate only as exportoriented units (EOUs). As a result, Indias apparel sector has been highly
fragmented and uses low levels of technology (USITC 2001).
As India steps into an increasingly liberalized global trade regime, the Government of India has implemented several programs to help the textile and apparel
industries adjust to the new trade environment. On November 2, 2000, the Government of India unveiled its National Textile Policy (NTP) 2000, aimed at
enhancing the competitiveness of the textile and apparel industry and increasing
Indias share of world textile and apparel exports. The production structure of
textile industry is given in Table 4.12.
The main sources of wastewater from a textiles mill are from designing, kiering,
scoring, bleaching, rinsing, mercerizing, dying, and printing. Table 4.13 presents
wastewater generation for the year 20062007. About 230 L of water is required for
processing 1 kg of fabrics and 360 L of water is required for 1 kg of cloth. Based on
these, an average of 295 L of water is considered to calculate the total water
requirement in textile plant for a particular year (CPCB 20002001). With this

Table 4.12 Structure of
Indias textile production
in 2000
Table 4.13 Wastewater

generation from cotton textile
production in 20062007a
65
Cotton (spun yarn) million kg

2,205
19,089
Cotton (fabrics)a million sq mt
Cotton (fibers) million kg
3,000
Source: USITC (2001)
a
Fabric weight is usually listed as a GSM value (grams per square
meter). If fabric is on a roll, measure width of the roll and
multiply by GSM rating to get weight in grams per linear meter.
There are various measurement: (i) GSM rating 155, roll width
3 m 465 g or 0.65 kg per linear meter; (ii) GSM rating 500, roll
width 2.5 m 1,250 g or 1.25 kg per linear meter
Kilo liter
4,351,102,500
2,755,580,250
1,533,640,244
First estimate
Second estimate
Third estimate
a
According to different GSM rating, the estimate of wastewater
generation differ
Table 4.14 Water pollutants from cotton textile plant (mg/L)

pH
Total
65.1
TDS
19,833
SS
1,409
COD
6,269
information we have calculated the wastewater generation from cotton textile

(Table 4.13) using the production of cotton (spun yarn, fabrics, etc.) for the year
20062007 (Table 4.12). The rate of effluents released from wastewater mg/L is
accounted in Table 4.14.
Using all these information, we have computed water pollutant from textile
industry presented in Table 4.2.
4.2.1.8
Jute, Hemp, and Mesta Textile
The rate of different water pollutants has been sourced from Chakraborty
et al. (2001). Using the production of raw jute of 8.2 million bales or 1.47 billion
kg available from Economic Survey of India 20092010 (GOI 20092010), the
volume of pollutants for the year 20062007 has been calculated and shown in
Table 4.2.
4.2.1.9
Woolen and Silk Textile
Woolen and silk textile plays an important role in the textile industry of India. For
the pollution data preparation, we have used the information from a case study
conducted by CPCB (20042005) where 15 silk-screen printing units in Serampore,
66
Table 4.15 Water quality

from Serampore silk-screen
plant (mg/L)
Highest
BOD
2,274
COD
8,385
TDS
6,526
TSS
266
pH
6.66
Sources: CPCB (20042005)
Lowest
57
141
17
553
7.45
Average
1,658.692
1,768.29
1,055.516
169.122
8.87
West Bengal, were considered. The water requirement per unit of silk and wool
production was approximately 1015 L of water. Total raw silk and wool production in 20072008 was 63.57 million kg (Ministry of Textiles 20092010). The
average data of water quality of Serampore plant has been applied to calculate the
total volume of pollution in India from woolen and silk textile for the year 2006
2007 documented in Tables 4.2 and 4.15.
4.2.1.10
Miscellaneous Textile
To calculate the volume of water pollution generated by the miscellaneous textile

for the year 20062007 (Table 4.2), the average water pollution coefficient of all
kinds of textile (cotton; jute, hemp, and mesta; and woolen and silk) has been used
together with production data according to the report by Ministry of Textile.
4.2.1.11
Sugar
Sugar industry is one of the most advanced agro-based industries in India, but it is
also one of the most water-polluting industries and is facing various challenges
including deterioration of environment due to its industrial activities (AARRO 1996).
The industry generates large quantity of wastewater at all stages of sugar
production process occurring at the mill house. Cooling pond and distillery (mills
that also produce industrial alcohol from molasses) are water intensive and
discharged water with very high levels of oil, suspended solids, organic matter,
and chemicals. It also generates gaseous emission and solid waste that can cause
pollution problem. Recent studies indicate that pollution concentrations for some
sugar factories in India have as high as 1,154 mg/L of BOD, 5,915 mg/L of COD,
and 5,759 mg/L of SS. The industry has to incur a significant cost to reduce these
very high effluent concentrations of pollutants to the Minimum National Standards
(MINAS) of 35 mg/L of BOD, 250 mg/L of COD, and 100 mg/L of SS in India
(Murty et al. 2006).
Based on the local audits data in the ETPI surveys, the unit wastewater flow for
sugar production was estimated to be 2 L/kg, 1.53 L/kg for sugar processing, and
15 L/kg for molasses production (Rao et al. 2011). Thus, 3.53 L of water is needed
to produce one kg of sugar. Based on sugarcane production for the year 20062007,
67
Table 4.16 Water pollutant

parameters from sugar plant
in India
Sugar
Tons/day
Tons/year
Thousand tons
BOD
266
87,780
87.78
COD
532
175,560
175.56
TDS
450
148,500
148.5
Oil and grease
3.07
1,013.1
1.0131
SS
113
37,290
37.29
Source: Authors estimate from CPCB (20022003a)
Table 4.17 Water pollutant

parameters from pulp and
paper plant in India
Tons/day
BOD
1,510
COD
2,067
SS
1,980
Tons/per year
498,300
682,110
653,400
Thousand tons
498.3
682.11
653.4
the wastewater generated was 48,788,000 kL. From wastewater generation and
information from the CPCB (20022003a), we have calculated the pollutants
released from the sugar plant given in Table 4.16.
4.2.1.12
Paper and Paper products
The paper manufacturing industry in India is quite old as the first handmade paper is
made in 1159 AD (CPCB 20022003a). The importance of paper in the development of an economy is significant as it is directly related to industrial and economic
growth of a country. The pulp and paper industry is broadly classified in three
categories: (a) wood based, (b) agro based, and (c) wastepaper based. The problem
of water pollution is predominant in these industries particularly in agro-based
small-scale units. All types of paper industries release major water pollutants: SS,
BOD, and COD. As per information available in CPCB, 99 % of the pulp and paper
mills have adequate facilities to comply with the standards. Agro-based and
wastepaper-based mills are considered as small-scale industries. For calculation
purposes, the number of working days in a year is assumed to be 330 days. Using
the source from the CPCB document (20022003a), Table 4.17 has been prepared.
4.2.1.13
Mining and Quarrying
Mineral resources play a very significant role in an economy, and India has been
generously endowed with minerals. Mining and quarrying sector accounts for 2.5 %
of Indias GDP, as estimated by the Central Statistical Organization. According to
the Indian Ministry of Mines, India produces as many as 87 minerals, which include
4 fuel, 10 metallic, 47 nonmetallic, 3 atomic, and 23 minor minerals including
building and other minerals. In India, 80 % of mining is in coal and the remaining
68
Table 4.18 Rate of water
quality from iron ore
processing plant in India
(mg/L)
TSS
pH
Oil and grease
Total dissolved solids
Source: CPCB document (20072008)
Average
196.7775
6.6575
11.32
520
Table 4.19 Water use and wastewater generation in oil refineries through cooling system and
recirculation cooling system
Cooling water system

Recirculation cooling system
Water consumption,
kilo liter/1,000 ton of crude
processed
Wastewater generation,
kilo/liter/1,000 ton of crude
processed
Max
27,589
5,652
Max
27,573
1,811
Min
18,021
1,350
Min
17,972
320
20 % is in the various metals and other raw materials such as gold, copper, iron,
lead, bauxite, zinc, and uranium.
In this sector, we only considered iron ore and oil refineries. Total iron ore
production in India is 172.296 million tons during 20062007. There will not be any
wastewater generation process at the mine, but processing the ore to produce the
final steel needs 3 cu.m of water per ton (CPCB 20072008). It is estimated that
463,290,000,000 litre of water is used for iron ore processing in 20062007. Using
the above information and the water pollution parameters from the CPCB document
(Table 4.18), we have calculated total volume of pollution from iron ore processing
for the year 20062007.
Oil refining industry is one of the oldest industries in the country. The refineries
are classified under two categories: one being those having once-through cooling
water system and the other having cooling water recirculation system. The water
use and wastewater generation in the oil refineries in the country are noted to be
greatly influenced by the type of cooling system used. Table 4.19 provides the rate
of water use and wastewater generated with respect to the two classes of refineries.
The rate for once-through cooling water system is several times higher than that of
the recirculation cooling system. Therefore, MINAS are stipulated both in terms of
concentration and quantum of pollutants worked based on wastewater generation of
700 kL per thousand tons of crude oil refined. Table 4.20 shows the characteristics
of raw effluent in oil refineries.
The water pollutants released from Indian oil refineries are given in Table 4.21.
According to a 330 operation days in a year, we have calculated the total volume of
pollutants. The total pollution generated from mining sector including oil refineries
and iron ore is given in Table 4.2.
69
Table 4.20 Characteristics of raw effluent in oil refineries (mg/L)

Concentration of pollutants in
Parameter
raw effluent
pH
6.59.5
Oil and grease
5001,000
Phenol
2040
SS
8001,000
BOD
200300
Sulfide
4060
Average concentration of
pollutant in raw effluent
750
30
900
250
50
Table 4.21 Rate of water pollutant release from oil refinery (t/day)
BOD
Tons/day
19
4.2.1.14
SS
67
Oil/grease
56
Phenol
2.4
Food Products
Traditionally, the food processing industry has been a large water user. In India,
large food processing plants regularly use more than 1,000,000 gallons of potable
water per day. Although water use will always be a part of the food processing
industry, it has become the principal target for pollution prevention and source
reduction practices. Among other environmental issues for the food industry, the
primary issues of concern with the wastewater it generates are biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD); total suspended solids (TSS); excessive nutrient loading, namely,
nitrogen and phosphorus compounds; pathogenic organisms, which are a result of
animal processing; and residual chlorine and pesticide levels. The content of
wastewater released from the food sector, however, is mainly COD, although
BOD, suspended solids, oil and grease, and other pollutants are also generated
from this sector.
Food processing wastewater can be characterized as nontoxic, because it contains few hazardous and persistent compounds. With the exception of some toxic
cleaning products, wastewater from food processing facilities is organic and can be
treated by conventional biological technologies. However, these food processes
require a large volume of water that generates equally large amounts of effluent.
A considerable part of this wastewater is treated for safe disposal to the environment. Table 4.22 shows typical rates of water use for various food processing
sectors.
Another contaminant of food processing wastewaters, particularly from meat,
poultry, and seafood processing facilities, is pathogenic organisms. Wastewaters
with high pathogenic levels must be disinfected prior to discharge. Typically,
chlorine (free or combined) is used to disinfect these wastewaters, but ozone,
70
Table 4.22 Typical rates for
water use for various food
processing industries
Industry range of flow product

Bread
Milk products
Meat packing
Source: UNIDO
Gal/t
480960
2,4004,800
3,6004,800
Table 4.23 Typical values of BOD5 and COD for different food plant wastewaters
Type of processor
Bakery products
Jams and jellies
Meat packing
Meat specialties
Poultry processor
Source: UNIDO
BOD5 (mg/L)
3,200
2,400
1,433
530
1,306
COD (mg/L)
7,000
4,000
2,746
900
1,581
BOD5/COD
0.46
0.60
0.52
0.59
0.83
ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and other nontraditional disinfection methods are

gaining acceptance due to the stricter regulations on the amount of permissible
residual chlorine levels in discharged wastewaters. The pH of a wastewater is also
of paramount importance to a receiving stream. Biological microorganisms, used in
wastewater treatment, are sensitive to extreme fluctuations in pH. Wastewater
discharge values that range from 5 to 9 on the pH logarithmic scale are usually
acceptable.
At any point in a particular food processing operation, the relationship between
BOD5 and COD is fairly consistent. However, the ratio of these two measures
varies widely with the type of product (Table 4.23).
Using the above information as well as the data from Chakraborty et al. (2001),
we have estimated the water parameter from the food sector which is presented in
Table 4.2.
So far we have been able to provide the estimates of water pollution parameters
in spite of data problems and limitation for the 14 industries. In addition, the
document Assessment of Industrial pollution published by the CPCB 2002
2003a has been used to get the data for the following sectors: fertilizer, thermal
power plants, leather and leather products, petrochemical, pesticides, inorganic
heavy chemicals, other chemicals, organic heavy chemicals, paints and varnishes,
plastic products, oil and vanaspati, iron and steel, machinery and metal products,
and Other machinery. We were also able to obtain the pollution data for thermal
power plant which has been used for electricity gas and water supply while the data
on engineering were used to obtain the pollution data for the sectors: (a) machinery
and metal products and (b) Other machinery.
The dataset given in the CPCB document provides per day water pollutants
release. We have multiplied these datasets by 330 days (operation for most of the
plants) to calculate the total volume of the different types of pollutants for the year
20062007. However, for the electricity sector, we consider 365 days of operation.
4.3 Cost Analysis
71
For sectors like fishing, coal and lignite, and nonmetallic mineral products, the
pollution data have been taken from Chakraborty et al. (2001) with the necessary
adjustments.
In summary, we have estimated the pollution data for 31 out of 38 sectors, and
these are presented in Table 4.2.
4.3
Cost Analysis
In this section, we discuss in detail the cost analysis of the treatment of water
pollutants in the different industries of India. The pollution abatement cost will
involve cost related to the different methods used in the treatment.
Physical, chemical, and biological methods are used to remove contaminants
from wastewater. To achieve different levels of contaminant removal, individual
wastewater treatment procedures are combined into a variety of systems. These are
classified as primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment. The removal of
specific contaminants as well as the removal and control of nutrients include a more
rigorous treatment. Natural systems are used for the treatment of wastewater in
land-based applications, and the sludge resulting from wastewater treatment operations is treated by various methods in order to reduce its water and organic content
and make it suitable for final disposal and reuse (Rout 2012).
The side effects of economic activities on the natural environment have resulted
in environmental pollution. Growing industrialization and urbanization have placed
increasingly competitive demand on water, the nations common property resource.
Moreover, water resources are the principal recipients of external diseconomies
such as industrial, household, and municipal wastes. These external diseconomies
can be minimized by the preservation of environmental resources or control of
pollution if polluters or some other agent of the economy incur some additional
costs.
However, the particular agent will have no incentive to incur pollution abatement cost since the environment is a public good. Environmental resource may be
regarded as public good in the sense that benefits (economic burden) from preserved (degraded) environment accrue to a large number of economic agents in the
economy or to all users of water resources or society as a whole. It is difficult to
define or enforce property rights to the services of these resources, thus it cannot be
priced. This justifies the various environmental regulations on control of pollution
(Chakraborty et al. 2001).
In light of this, India has enacted several laws in this regard pertaining to
industrial pollution abatement. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974, amended in 1986; the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess
Act, 1977, amended in 1988; and the Environment Protection Act, 1986 are the
most important laws. These laws set the national goals for eliminating the practice
of discharging pollutants into water bodies without providing the required
72
treatment, and these are specific guidelines for effluent discharges (termed MINAS)
(details in Chap. 2).
The CPCB provides source-specific pollution standards for industries with
respect to pollution concentration of major water pollutants: BOD, COD, SS, and
pH. The CPCB urban centers have launched a water pollution control program for
industries. It identified 1,532 large and medium industries and gave a time schedule
to these industries for compliance with the prescribed standards. It was found that
many of these industries have effluent treatment plants (ETPs), but despite these
they still did not comply with the prescribed pollution standards (MoEF 2009). On
the other hand, small-scale industries contribute almost 40 % of the industrial water
pollution in India with those located in the many industrial estates in India utilizing
the common effluent treatment plants (CETPs).
Recently, the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) has launched the
Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environmental Protection (CREP)in
March 2003. The object of this charter is to go beyond the compliance of regulatory
norms for prevention and control of pollution through the various measures including waste minimization, in-plant process control, and the adoption of clean technologies (MoEF 2003). The charter has set targets concerning water and energy
conservation, recovery of chemicals, reduction in pollution, elimination of toxic
pollutants, and the processing and management of residues. The charter suggests
action points for controlling pollution for the various categories of highly polluting
industries. The Task Force was constituted for monitoring the progress of the
implementation of CREP recommendations/action points (MoEF 2003).
A minimal national standard for a particular industry is the effluent standard that
is achievable by the industry by installing pollution control measures which are
within the techno-economic capability of the industry. Generally, two main aspects
are taken into consideration for the development of standards for wastewater
discharges: (a) the adverse effects on health and environment and (b) the
achievability of limits of pollutants by incorporation of appropriate pollution
control measures.
The use of the best available and economically feasible technology is the
objective of the latter approach. Economically feasible technology assures that
the cost of pollution control measures will remain within the affordability of the
industrial units. Standards developed on these principles are techno-economic
standards and they are uniform throughout the country.
In order to develop the most economic pollution control solution in terms of
investment and operational costs, it has been recommended that pollution abatement measures at the sources should be introduced prior to the installation of
treatment systems (MoEF 2003).
It is also suggested that the following aspects should be considered before
designing a treatment system:
1. Segregation of wastewater based on type and strength
2. Reduction of quantity and strength of wastewater by adopting in-process and
in-plant control measures
4.3 Cost Analysis
73
3. Decision on the best combination of treatment system

In addition, technical and economic feasibility of the treatment system should
also be looked at. The following considerations guide the technology to be used in a
particular case:
(a) Degree of treatment needed based on the characteristics of the waste and the
statutory regulation in respect of the quality of the effluent to be discharged on
the receiving body
(b) Capital cost and recurring
(c) Availability of land to accommodate the treatment plant
(d) Availability of the operation and maintenance skills and facilities at the site
(MoEF 2003)
The above discussion indicates that different steps have been taken by the
Central Pollution Control Board to minimize water pollution. The different industries have taken actions in this direction. However, these actions involve abatement
cost and the next section will discuss the preparation of pollution abatement cost
data for the different industries.
4.3.1
Abatement Cost Data
It is challenging to obtain data on abatement cost incurred by the different industries

for a variety of reasons. Since some of the industries have no systematic approach
towards effluent treatment, any figure obtained from them will not provide any
practical idea about the cost involved. Moreover, applicability of the types of
treatment schemes/alternatives varies for the different categories of a particular
industry in terms of its efficiency. Therefore, industries that have effluent treatment
systems and also possess information about financial requirements are selected as
listed in Table 4.24. Even for these industries, the information is not available in the
required form. Thus, further data collection from different sources is done to
process and refine the cost data. Despite the various data limitations, we have
been able to provide estimates for the different water pollutants for 31 industries;
however, cost data could only be estimated for the 16 industries as mentioned in
Table 4.24.
For the purpose of this study, we would be dealing only with the operational
(or running/recurring) cost aspects of the pollution abatement measures. The
running cost of the treatment plant will include cost of power, salaries of the
staff, chemicals used, maintenance, repairs, and depreciation. It should be mentioned that different industries generate different types of pollution parameters, and
therefore, the removal of pollutants depends on the type of industries. The cost
involved in pollution abatement activity of each sector is analyzed and evaluated
suitably for clean water valuation of each sector. Details of the cost data analyzed
for each of the 16 industries mentioned are discussed.
74
Table 4.24 Abatement cost data for the selected industries

Serial number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
4.3.1.1
Inputoutput
sector number
3
4
7
8
10
11
12
14
15
17
18
19
22
23
26
27
Name of the sectors

Dairy
Livestock
Oil and gas (mining)
Sugar
Food products
Cotton textile
Miscellaneous textile
Rubber and rubber products
Inorganic heavy chemical
Organic heavy chemical
Other chemicals
Textile
In processing of textiles, the industry uses a number of dyes, chemicals, auxiliary

chemicals, and sizing materials. As a result, contaminated wastewater is generated
which can cause environmental problems unless it is properly treated before its
disposal. The wastewater treatment is done mostly by primary and secondary
processes. However, these conventional treatment systems are not very effective
in the removal of pollutants such as dissolved solids, color, trace metals, etc. (CPCB
2007c).
Removal of dyes from the effluent is a major problem in most of the textile
industries. Dissolved solids contained in the industry effluents are also a critical
parameter. TDS are difficult to be treated with conventional treatment systems.
Dissolved solids in effluent may also be harmful to vegetation and restrict its use for
agricultural purpose. Textile effluents are often contaminated with
non-biodegradable organics termed as refractory materials. Detergents are a typical
example of such materials. The presence of these chemicals results in high chemical
oxygen demand (COD) value of the effluent. Organic pollutants, which originate
from organic compounds of dye stuffs, acids, sizing materials, enzymes, tallow,
etc., are also found in textile effluent, and such impurities are reflected in the
analysis of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and COD. These pollutants are
controlled by the use of biological treatment processes (CPCB 2007c).
The majority of the textile industries have installed the conventional treatment
systems like physicochemical treatment or physicochemical treatment followed by
biological treatment system. The chemical treatment helps reduce color and
suspended solids in addition to a significant reduction in BOD and COD values.
4.3 Cost Analysis
75
Textile effluents may also require tertiary or advanced treatment methods to remove
particular contaminant or to prepare the treated effluent for reuse. Some common
tertiary operations are the removal of residual organic color compounds by adsorption and removal of dissolved solids by membrane filtration (CPCB 2007c).
The advanced treatment methods in textile industry can effectively recover
water and/or salts from effluent streams for their reuse in production process. The
application of advanced methods can help meet stringent environmental or regulatory requirements such as zero effluent discharge. Membrane filtrations can produce
treated water with high purity. Treatment system like activated carbon adsorption
and ozonation can also be used to make the effluent suitable for use in membrane
filtration. To minimize effluent volume or achieve a desired concentration of target
pollutant, an evaporation system can be employed. An evaporation system and
crystallizer combination can also recover salt. Nanofiltration, on other hand, allows
passage of salt with the permeate which when used in dying process requires less
addition of salt. More importantly, the nanofiltration is capable of removing
hardness elements such as calcium or magnesium together with bacteria, viruses,
and color. As nanofiltration is operated on lower pressure than reverse osmosis, it
costs less to run (CPCB 2007c).
According to the structure of Indias textile sector, we have cotton textile
categorized as cotton spun yarn, cotton fabrics, and cotton fibers. Here we provide
three different estimates of operation and maintenance cost of textile wastewater.
Wastewater generation depends on the different technologies adopted such as
activated carbon adsorption, ozonation, membrane filtrations and nanofiltration,
water requirement to process fabric and cloth,2 and textile production3 (CPCB
2007c).
A typical large textile industry situated in Rajasthan was selected for the CPCB
study. We have used the data from this study to estimate the abatement cost of the
textile industry. Production activities involve weaving, dyeing, and finishing, and
these activities generate about 575 KLD of wastewater, which is treated in treatment and recycling plant consisting of primary treatment, ion exchange, ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis membrane filtration (CPCB 2007c).
The operation and maintenance cost of a primary treatment is Rs. 5.85 lakh per
month, that is, Rs. 34.08 per kL. For a combined primary and ultra-filtration system,
the recurring cost comes to 9.04 lakh per month which works out to Rs. 52.40 per
230 L of water is required for processing 1 kg of fabric; 360 L of water is required for processing
1 kg of cloth. We have considered 295 L as average of processing fabrics and cloths.
3
Fabric weight is usually listed as a GSM value (grams per square meter).
This is the weight for 1 square meter (1 m 1 m).
If fabric is on a roll, measure width of the roll and multiply by GSM rating to get weight in
grams per linear/metre.
GSM rating 500, roll width 2.5 m 1,250 g or 1.25 kg per linear meter.
GSM rating 155, roll width 3 m 465 g or 0.65 kg per linear meter.
76
Table 4.25 Total operation

and maintenance cost for
cotton textile
First estimate
Second estimate
Third estimate
Lakh Rs.
3,185,877.4
2,017,635.9
1,122,931.4
Table 4.26 Components of operation and maintenance cost for two different estimates of textile
plant by CPCB
Item
1. Salary of operator
2. Cost of chemicals
3. Maintenance cost
4. Electricity charge
5. Cost of water used
Total
a
Without wastewater
Source CPCB (2007c)
Case 1
Case 2
Cost (Rs.)
100,800
122,452
18,400
151,200
0
392,852
Cost (Rs.)
316,560
364,750
1,512
3,024
795,960
1,481,806
Average cost of two

cases
316,560
364,750
1,512
3,024
795,960
539,349a(937,329)
One unit of wastewater

treatment cost
0.387
0.452
0.018
0.143
Table 4.27 Three estimates of operation and maintenance cost for cotton textile plant in 2006
2007 (lakh Rs.)
First estimate (high)
1. Salary of operator 1,232,651
2. Cost of chemicals 1,438,925
3. Maintenance cost 58,809.03
4. Electricity charge 455,492.4
Total
3,185,877.4
Second estimate (medium)
Third estimate (low)
780,645.3
911,280.3
37,244.13
288,466.2
2,017,636.9
434,474.4
507,180.3
20,728.52
160,548.2
1,122,931.4
kL. The recurring cost of the entire system has been reported 12.63 lakh per month.
When calculated in terms of Rs./kL, it comes to be Rs. 73.22 (CPCB 2007c). On the
basis of wastewater discharge as it is explained in Sect. 4.2, we have three estimates
for total operation and maintenance cost which are given in Table 4.25. To get a
more detailed component of operation and maintenance cost, we have considered
two different estimates of the CPCB which are shown in Table 4.26. Using these
ratios, three estimates have been computed for different categories of operation and
maintenance cost. These are shown in Table 4.27.
In our current exercise, we have considered the second estimate which is more
reasonable, as it lies between two extremes.
4.3 Cost Analysis
4.3.1.2
77
Milk and Milk Products
There are various methods to treat the dairy wastewater. The aerobic methods
which were used for the treatment and disposal of dairy wastewater have been
found to be inadequate, because of the problems associated with bulking and
excessive biomass growth (Banu et al. 2007). Moreover, the installation costs for
aerobic treatment systems are also quite high, and such systems require considerable input energy for the maintenance of aeration. Anaerobic methods for dairy
wastewater treatment, on the other hand, have drawn the attention of researchers.
To estimate the operating cost of effluent treatment of milk and milk products
(dairy) plant, we have followed a number of steps. We have considered a typical
mother dairy plant in India whose annual turnover is Rs. 500 million and total cost
(capital and operation and maintenance cost) of effluent treatment is Rs. 7.5 million.
We have estimated the ratio of annual turnover and effluent treatment cost which is
0.015. The total annual turnover of dairy industry in India in 2006 is Rs. 14,438,627
lakh. Using the ratio of annual turnover and effluent treatment, we calculated the
annual burden of 2006 which is Rs. 216,579.4 lakh. Using three different technologies, we have calculated three estimates of total operation and maintenance cost.
We then used the ratio of operation cost to total cost to compute the operation and
maintenance cost for three technologies as given in Table 4.28
For the current exercise, we considered total operation cost as Rs. 109,124.84
using technology 1 which seems to be reasonable (Table 4.29). The other two
estimates seem to be very low. Due to unavailability of the data for different
categories of operation cost (energy, chemicals, etc.), we considered the average
cost structure of allied industries such as food and sugar industries (Table 4.30).
4.3.1.3
Livestock
The wastewater treatment system in livestock sector essentially comprise (1) selfcleaning type screening or two-stage screening, (2) anaerobic treatment, (3) aerobic
treatment, and (4) filter press for dewatering of the sludge (GOI 2011b).
For the treatment of liquid waste/effluent from slaughter houses, the guidelines
contained in the Manual on Sewerage & Sewage Treatment published by the
Ministry of Urban Development in 1993 may be followed. The standards prescribed
in the Environment Protection Act, 1986, must also be adhered by each slaughter
house (GOI 2011b). The estimated waste generated in a slaughter house is stated in
Table 4.31.
The Supreme Court of India, High Courts in States, and Lower Courts have
taken a serious view on environmental pollution and have in several cases ordered
the closing down of existing slaughter houses and flaying units and other such
highly polluting industries. Therefore, the State Governments and Urban Local
Bodies have chalked out plans for the modernization of slaughter houses. The
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has brought out Draft Guidelines for
Capital cost annualized

Operation and maintenance
cost
Total cost
11.67
Technology
1 (Rs. lakh)
5.79
5.88
0.504
Operation cost as a
proportion of total cost
25.1
Technology
2 (Rs. lakh)
18.06
7.04
0.281
Operation cost as a
Table 4.28 Operation and capital cost for three different techniques for milk and milk products
42.32
Technology
3 (Rs. lakh)
29.69
12.63
0.299
Operation cost as a
78
4
4.3 Cost Analysis
79
Table 4.29 Operation and

maintenance cost for milk and
milk products for three
technologies
Operation cost
Using technology 1
Using technology 2
Using technology 3
Rs. lakh
109,124.84
64,636.055
60,745.77
Table 4.30 Components of operation and maintenance cost for milk and milk products
Energy
Chemical
Manpower
Repair
Total
Ratio of the average cost

structure of food and sugar
0.704
0.123
0.133
0.038
Dairy (Rs. lakh)

76,893.47
13,443.13
14,601.70
4,186.54
109,124.84
Table 4.31 Waste generation in slaughter house

Type of slaughter
1. Large
2. Medium
3. Small
Capacity annual
Large animals > 40,000
Small animals > 6,00,000
Large animals 10,00140,000
Small animals 1,00,0016,00,000
Large animals up to 10,000
Small animals up to 1,00,000
Daily waste generated house

67 t/day
26 t/day
0.51 t/day
Source: GOI (2011b)

Table 4.32 Waste process treatment cost for slaughter house
Biogas Plant
Waste
process
1,250 kg/
day
65 t/day
Waste processing
stage 1
Waste processing
60 t/day
stage 2
Source: GOI (2011b)
412.5 t/
year
21,450 t/
year
19,800 t/
year
Treatment cost (lakh/

year)
1.5
Treatment cost (lakh/

ton)
0.00364
132
0.00615
31
0.00157
Sanitation in Slaughter Houses during August 1998 (GOI 2011b). The slaughter
house waste process consists of biogas plant and waste processing (Table 4.32).
Based on this information, the waste processing cost per ton is Rs. 0.01136 lakh
in a year. Thus, the total cost to process 4,900,000 tons of meat in 2006 is 55,643.7
lakh rupees. Further cost distribution among energy, chemical, manpower, and
O&M cost as taken from Chakraborty et al. (2001) is given in Table 4.33.
80
Table 4.33 Components of operation and maintenance cost for livestock sector
Energy
Chemical
Manpower
Other operation and maintenance
Total
4.3.1.4
Ratio of the component of

O and M cost
0.684
0.081
0.143
0.091
1
Total O and M cost

(lakh rupees)
38,062.59
4,531.199
7,975.118
5,074.839
55,643.75
Food Products
The food processing industries in India have followed the major technological
innovations in the industry, including those in clean technologies and processes.
The clean technologies include the following:
(a) Advanced Wastewater Treatment Practices. It is defined as any treatment
beyond secondary (or biological) treatment. These treatment practices are
employed to target specific discharge constituents that are of concern. Pathogens, suspended solids, dissolved solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus are removed
in advanced wastewater treatment. The following are some of the technologies
being used in advanced wastewater treatment: (i) membrane applications,
(ii) disinfection, (iii) charge separation, and (iv) other separation practices.
There are various benefits that can be acquired from these practices. Studies
have shown that membrane applications can be less energy intensive than
evaporation and distillation operations and take up less space. The technology
also gives better control of the process effluent. Unlike chemical precipitation,
membrane technology does not produce a sludge disposal problem. The main
benefit of disinfecting wastewater is that it improves and protects water quality.
Similar to membrane applications, ion exchange does not produce a chemical
sludge and, like disinfection, it protects the water quality and decreases the
nutrient-loading problems that cause eutrophication in receiving waters.
Electrocoagulation is beginning to receive attention as a treatment option and
is expected to increase in use in the food processing industry. The use of any of
these advanced processes improves the final wastewater effluent quality and
increases the likelihood of recycling renovated process water (UNIDO).
(b) Improved Packaging. Use of less excessive and more environmentally friendly
packaging products (UNIDO).
(c) Improved Sensors and Process Control. Use of advanced techniques to control
specific portions of the manufacturing process to reduce wastes and increase
productivity (UNIDO).
(d) Food Irradiation. Use of radiation to kill pathogenic microorganisms.
(e) Water and Wastewater Reduction (Closed Loop/Zero Emission Systems). This
is basically based on the reduction or total elimination of effluent from the
manufacturing process. An increasingly viable option for companies is the
4.3 Cost Analysis

Table 4.34 Ratio of
operating cost of different
items in food processing plant

and maintenance cost in food
processing sector (lakh Rs.)
81
Items
Energy
Chemicals
Manpower
Operation and maintenance
Source: Chakraborty et al. (2001)
Energy
Chemicals
Manpower
Repair or maintenance
Total
Lakh Rs./thousand tons

0.709
0.106
0.127
0.056
Lakh Rs.
2,716.721
407.337
488.9185
217.3605
3,830.337
zero discharge system. Many food processing facilities are looking to

pretreatment options that can help reduce the amount of lost product. The
zero emissions strategy relies on a network of companies utilizing each
others waste streams. The strategy is a more economically efficient system
than a closed loop because the waste products do not have to be fully treated.
Both zero discharge and zero emission systems achieve better effluent water
quality and have fewer negative impacts on the environment (UNIDO).
The total generation of BOD from food processing sector in 20062007 is 57.63
thousand tons. To estimate the operating cost of food processing sector, we
assumed that up to 99 % of BOD is eliminated through treatment. The total cost
accrued by the food processing plant is 3,830.337 lakh rupees. Table 4.34 shows the
ratio of cost structure used in Chakraborty et al. (2001). These ratios have been used
to allocate the operating cost among the different categories of food processing
sector in India for the year 20062007.
The operating cost structure along with different categories is shown in
Table 4.35.
4.3.1.5
Sugar
To calculate cost in this industry, we use the ratio of operation and maintenance cost
to total output available from Chakraborty et al. (2001). The total value of output of
sugar industry is collected from inputoutput table of India. The total operation and
maintenance cost of effluent removal from the sugar industries is estimated to be
Rs. 201,493.00 lakh. The distribution of operation and maintenance cost across
different heads has been taken from Chakraborty et al. (2001). Table 4.36 presents
the components of operation and maintenance cost.
82
Table 4.36 Total operation and maintenance cost for sugar sector
Energy
Chemicals
Manpower
Repair or maintenance
Total
4.3.1.6
Ratio of operating cost of different items

0.376
0.382
0.132
0.110
1.000
Rs. lakh
75,720.24
77,003.74
26,523.39
22,245.62
201,493
Tea, Coffee, and Beverages
In the current exercise, we have aggregated the tea, coffee, and beverages in one
sector, and therefore, the effluent treatment cost will be presented both separately
and in a combined form.
Beverages
We have estimated the operation and maintenance cost for effluent treatment
following a typical alcohol plant cost provided by Nagaraj and Kumar (2008).
This plant effluent removal capacity is 1,500 kilo liters per year, and the total annual
effluent removal cost is Rs. 113.24 lakh. On the basis of this typical plant capacity,
operation and maintenance cost, and alcohol production in India for 20062007, as
we have calculated, the total annual cost of removing effluent from alcohol plants in
India for the year 20062007 is Rs. 241,578.66 lakh (Table 4.37). Different subcategories under operation and maintenance cost are calculated according to the
data from the sample plant (Nagaraj and Kumar 2008) given in Table 4.37.
From Table 4.37 we have prepared Table 4.38 according to the different
categories of operational cost.
Coffee
In this category, we have also estimated the operation and maintenance cost of an
effluent treatment plant for coffee industry. The annual production of coffee in
20062007 is 270,500 t. In instant coffee manufacturing, wastewater is generated
from spent coffee waste.
This wastewater is acidic in nature and has BOD, 6001,000 mg/L; COD, 2,500
10,000 mg/L; and SS, 1001,000 mg/L. The wastewater generation is about
300 KLD which is generally 5055 % of water use (CPCB 2006a).
Activated sludge process is generally used for treatment of wastewater from the
coffee production followed by physicochemical treatment for color removal. Such
treatment process has resulted in
BOD 10 mg=L, COD 93 mg=L and SS 14 mg=L CPCB 2006:
4.3 Cost Analysis
83
Table 4.37 Different components under operation and maintenance cost for alcohol plant
Cost of culture
Average cost of funds
Cost of diesel
Cost of press mud
Cost of transportation of press mud
Annual manpower cost
Depreciation (@ 10 %)
Maintenance
Annual operational cost of effluent plant
Source: Nagaraj and Kumar (2008)
Table 4.38 Total operational
and maintenance cost for
beverage sector in India
(Rs. lakh)
Rs. lakh
55.13
17.5
11.32
5.16
6.88
15
2.25
113.24
0.486
0.1545
0.099
0.045
0
0.060
0.132
0.0198
1
Energy cost
Chemical cost
Manpower cost
Depreciation
Maintenance
Total operational and maintenance cost
Rs. lakh
117,610.66
37,333.3323
24,149.33
11,007.99
0
14,677.33
31,999.99
4,799.99
241,578.66
Rs. lakh
24,149.33
165,952
14,677.33
32,000
4,800
241,578.7
Normally 8085 % of BOD can be removed from the effluent plant. According
to our estimate, the BOD release from coffee processing plant was 200.38 thousand
tons in 20062007. Out of this it is assumed that 80 % is removed, that is, 160,304 t
of BOD. The cost of removal depends on the size of the plant, whether it is a
medium- or a large-scale plant. For large-scale plant, the cost is Rs. 747 per ton,
while for medium plant it is Rs. 1,160 per ton. We have taken an average of these
two types of plant and have used Rs. 953 per ton of BOD removed (CPCB 2006a).
Thus, the BOD treatment cost is Rs. 1,529.14 lakh, which covers only the operation
and maintenance cost of the plant. The different categories under operation and
maintenance cost are derived from the sample plant of effluent treatment of HLL.
On the basis of that information, we have calculated the operation and maintenance
cost of effluent treatment of coffee processing plant in India for the year 20062007
(Table 4.39).
From the above table, the cost structure is derived and is given in Table 4.40. The
cost of chemical and electricity covers almost 76 % of the operation and maintenance cost.
According to our sectoral classification, tea, coffee, and beverages together are
considered as one sector. Due to this sectoral classification, we have added the
operation and maintenance cost of effluent treatment of coffee processing and
beverages which is given in Table 4.41.
84
Table 4.39 Operating cost of

effluent treatment plant of
HLL (Rs.)
Items
Non ferric alum
Sodium hypochlorite
Urea
DAP
Sulfuric acid
Poly-electrolyte
Caustic lye
Cost of manpower
Cost of power
Cost of repair
Depreciation
Total
Cost per annum (Rs.)

461,920
152,188
29,256
21,500
8,970
21,757
187,113
3,49,320
9,68,400
51,000
2,04,619
24,56,043
Table 4.40 Components of operating cost of effluent treatment plant of HLL
Total chemical
Cost of manpower
Electricity
Repair and depreciation
Total
Sample plant cost

(Rs)
882,704.00
349,320
968,400
255,619
2,456,043
Ratio of total item cost

and total cost
0.359
0.142
0.394
0.104
1
Rs. lakh
549.57
217.48
602.93
159.14
1,529.144
Table 4.41 Components of operating cost of effluent treatment plant of coffee processing and
beverages (Rs. lakh)
Total chemical
Cost of manpower
Electricity
Repair and depreciation
Total O and M cost
4.3.1.7
Coffee processing
549.575
217.488
602.930
159.149
1,529.144
Beverages
165,952
14,677.33
24,149.33
36,800.00
241,578.7
Total
166,501.6
14,894.82
24,752.26
36,959.15
243,107.8
Leather and Leather Products
Tanneries in India are classified under the category of most polluting industries
(Sankar 2000). There are more than 1,200 tanneries in India in 1998, of which about
90 % are small-scale units. Tanneries form an intermediate segment of the leather
industry. They get hides and skins from the animal husbandry sector and sale tanned
leather to downstream units for manufacturing footwear and leather products. By
1990, there was growing awareness about environmental damages resulting from
the discharge of untreated effluents by tanneries into streams and rivers. Public
4.3 Cost Analysis

Table 4.42 Operation and
maintenance cost for leather
effluent plant of Jajmau and
Unnao (million Rs.)
Table 4.43 Components of

operation and maintenance
cost of effluent treatment
plant of leather and leather
products (Rs. lakh)
85
Jajmau (USB based)

Power
4.08
Wages and salaries 1.2
Chemicals
0.66
Maintenance
1.08
Oil and lubricants
0.3
Sludge disposal
0.9
Miscellaneous
0.6
Total
8.82
Capacity
36MLD
Capital cost
191.5
Source: Tare et al. (2012)
Unnao (ASP based)

3.06
0.84
0.036
0.36
0.12
0.06
0.3
4.776
2.15MLD
19.3
(Rs. lakh)
Power
Wages and salaries
Chemicals
Maintenance
Oil and lubricants
Sludge disposal
Miscellaneous
Total
521.787
143.235
6.138
61.386
20.46
10.233
51.155
814.397
interest litigation stages against tanneries are culminated in court orders which
directed relocation or closure of tanneries which have not either erected ETPS or
connected to CETPs.
The total operation and maintenance cost of leather industry in India is calculated on the basis of data available from two different tannery plants in Uttar
Pradesh having two different effluent treatment systems (Table 4.42).
The two different treatments systems are USB- and ASP-based CETP. The
capacity of the plants is different and thus the capital cost. The number of working
days in the CETP plant is 260 days. The production of raw hides and skin in 2006 is
238.3 thousand tons or 238,300,000 kg (FAO 2013). Given that the total wastewater
generation rate is 40 litre per kg of hides and skin processing, the total wastewater
generation from leather plants in India was 9,532,000,000 kg. Based on the plant
capacity and total cost of the plants in Unnao and Jajmau, we have calculated the
total effluent treatment cost of leather plants (Rs. 814.397 lakh) in India for the year
20062007 (Table 4.43).
4.3.1.8
Paints, Varnishes, and Lacquers
The paint industry is another highly polluting industry. It mainly releases SS,
phenol, BOD, and COD. The operation and maintenance cost of effluent treatment
86
Table 4.44 Cost structure of effluent plant of a typical paint industry in India
Item (19992000)
3. Maintenance cost
Total operation and maintenance cost
Source: CPCB 20022003a
and maintenance cost of
effluent treatment plant of
paints industry (Rs. lakh)
Cost (Rs.)
144,000
197,736
60,000
354,912
276,000
1,032,648
Item
2. Cost of chemicals and water
3. Maintenance cost
Total
Ratio of each item to total cost

0.139
0.191
0.058
0.343
0.267
1
Rs. lakh
1,120.353
4,299.731
466.814
2,147.344
8,034.244
plant of a typical paint plant provided by the CPCB for the year 19992000 is given
in Table 4.44 (CPCB 20022003a). The annual turnover for the particular plant is
Rs. 341,488,514, and thus, the ratio of annual turnover and total operation cost is
0.0030239. The total output of the paints industry in 20062007 is Rs. 2,656,861
lakh (CSO 2011). Using this information we have calculated the total operation and
maintenance cost of effluent treatment plant in the paints industry for the year 2006
as Rs. 8,034.24 lakh. The ratio of each category of operation and maintenance to
total cost of a typical plant has been used to calculate these items for the year 2006
2007 in India (Table 4.44). Table 4.45 presents the different components of
operation and maintenance cost of effluent plant in the paint industry of India for
the year 20062007.
4.3.1.9
Paper and Paper Products
The paper industry primarily generates heavy amount of BOD, COD, and SS. The
cost of operation and maintenance of effluent treatment plant of M/S Ashoka is
given in Table 4.46. The effluent treatment cost depends on the production of paper.
Given a production of 11,880 t per year for the plant, the operation and maintenance
cost for wastewater treatment is Rs. 524,475.5. To get an estimate for the effluent
treatment cost of paper plant in India, we have used the above information from this
typical plant. The total paper production in India was 6,600,000 t in 2006 (Dipp
2008). Therefore, the total operation and maintenance cost to remove effluent of
paper plant in India for the year 20062007 is Rs. 2,916.37 lakh. The category of
each item of operation and maintenance as taken from the M/S Ashoka is given in
Table 4.46.
4.3 Cost Analysis
87
Table 4.46 A typical effluent treatment plant of M/S Ashoka

Items
Labor
Energy
Chemical
Repair and maintenance
Total
Source: UNEP (2002)
Table 4.47 Allocation of
cost for rubber and rubber
products (Rs. lakh)
Ratio of total cost and each item cost

0.067
0.665
0.155
0.114
1.000
Energy
Chemical
Manpower
O and M cost (Rs. lakh)

195.5126
1,938.227
451.6313
331.002
2,916.372
(Rs. lakh)
985.7871
3,493.125
1,521.088
6,000
4.3.1.10
Rubber and Rubber Products
The operation and maintenance cost of removing effluent for the industry is
estimated based on rubber production and annual turnover. The rubber production
in 2005 was 1,052,960 metric tons (CPCB 2007b) and the annual turnover was
200 billion rupees (India Finance and Investment Guide 2013). In this context, we
have taken the annual burden from a typical plant at 0.30 % of annual turnover.
Using that information, we arrive at the total cost of operation and maintenance for
the effluent treatment of rubber and rubber product in India for the year 2005, which
was Rs. 6,000 lakh (Table 4.47). The items under the operation and maintenance
cost are distributed according to the information used in Chakraborty et al. (2001).
4.3.1.11
Jute, Hemp, and Mesta Textile
The estimation of effluent treatment cost of jute, hemp, and mesta textile is done
using the information from Chakraborty et al. (2001). The ratio of operation and
maintenance cost to total output of jute, hemp, and mesta plant that is available
from Chakraborty et al. (2001) has been applied to calculate the operation and
maintenance cost of effluent treatment of jute, hemp, and mesta plant in India for
the year 20062007. The total output for this sector is Rs. 605,489 lakh for the year
20062007 (CSO 2011), and we derive the operation and maintenance cost as
Rs. 538.88 lakh for the year 20062007. Different components of operation and
maintenance cost are also calculated using Chakraborty et al. (2001). Table 4.48
presents the cost structure of this sector.
88
Table 4.48 Components of

cost for jute, hemp, and mesta
textile (Rs. lakh)
Energy
Manpower
Total
198.063
331.624
9.19247
538.885

cost for miscellaneous textile
plant (Rs. lakh)
Energy
Chemical
Manpower
Total O&M Cost
1,338.572
80,622.01
1,338.572
1,179.213
84,480.67
4.3.1.12
Miscellaneous Textile
Like jute, hemp, and mesta textile, the procedure to calculate the effluent treatment
cost of miscellaneous textile is almost similar. Here we also considered the ratio of
operation and maintenance cost to total output of miscellaneous textile effluent
treatment from Chakraborty et al. (2001). The total output of the plant is
Rs. 11,256,845 lakh based on the inputoutput table of 20062007. Using this
information we have estimated the total operation and maintenance cost of this
sector which is Rs. 84,480.67 lakh for the year 20062007. The different components of operation and maintenance cost are also calculated on the basis of
Chakraborty et al. (2001) and are shown in Table 4.49.
4.3.1.13
Oil and Gas
Oil and gas sector is considered under the mining and quarrying sector for this
study. The operating cost of effluent treatment of this sector is relatively complicated. There are normally three different phases for this operation: (1) onshore,
(2) GGS (gas gathering station), and (3) GCS (gas collecting station). The performance of ETP for two typical plants in India is shown in Tables 4.50 and 4.51. It
shows that GGS treatment gives better result than GCS (CPCB 2006b). The
operation and maintenance cost for effluent treatment of ONGC plant that covers
77 % of oil production in India is Rs. 23,652.5 lakh (Table 4.52). Based on this
information, the estimates for the whole economy is Rs. 30,717.53 lakh for the year
20062007. The different categories of operation and maintenance cost are given in
Table 4.53.
On the basis of the above information, the operation and maintenance cost and
its breakdown are presented in Table 4.53.
4.3 Cost Analysis
89
Table 4.50 Performance of ETP installed at OCS (oil collecting station), M/s. Oil India Ltd.
(mg/L)
Parameters unit effluent characteristics
1. pH
2. TSS
3. TDS
4. Oil and grease
6. COD
7. Chloride
Before treatment
8.8
38
6,534
486
246
1,154
After treatment
8.8
36
6,572
118
1,154
Table 4.51 Performance of ETP installed at Lakwa GGS, M/s. ONGC (mg/L)
Parameters effluent characteristics
1. pH
2. TSS
3. TDS
4. Oil and grease
5. BOD5
6. COD
7. Chloride
8. Sulfate
Before treatment
7.2
122
1,238
845
330
1,642
500
40
After treatment
7.1
5.8
19
37
610
Table 4.52 Total operation and maintenance cost for effluent treatment plant of ONGC
Operating cost
(m3/day)
1,500
1,400
2,000
Onshore
GGS
GCS
Total

cost for oil and gas effluent
(Rs. lakh)
4.3.1.14
Effluent treated in ONGC

plant (m3)
3,500
240,000
6,000
O and M cost for effluent

treatment (Rs.)
5,250,000
1,960,000,000
400,000,000
2,365,250,000 or 23,652.5 lakh
Energy
Chemicals
Labor
Total
Rs. lakh
9,039.303
14,048.16
5,247.281
2,382.785
30,717.53
Inorganic Chemicals and Organic Chemicals
Chemical industry is one of Indias oldest industries, contributing significantly

towards the industrial and economic growth of the nation. The Indian chemical
90
Table 4.54 Water pollution load generated from dye stuffs industries in India (before treatment)
Class of dye
Production in
stuff
t/day
AZO
7.1
Organic pigment
31.5
Vat
9.0
Reactive
18.5
Optical brightener
6.0
Total
70
Sl No.
1
2
3
4
5
Wastewater generation in
MLD
0.8
12.5
41.4
1.5
3.5
58.8
COD load generated in

t/day
1.2
18.8
62.1
2.2
5.2
89.4
industry forms the backbone of the industrial and agricultural development of India
and provides the building blocks for several downstream industries. According to
the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, the Indian chemical industry is
estimated to be worth approximately US$ 35 bn, which is about 3 % of Indias total
GDP with total employment generated of about 1 million. In terms of volume, it is
the 12th largest in the world and 3rd largest in Asia (D&B 2007).
Exports of chemicals from India have increased significantly and account for
about 14 % of total exports and 9 % of total imports of the country. The Indian
chemical industry comprises both small- and large-scale units. The major subsegments of this industry include alkali, organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals,
pesticides, dyes and dyestuffs, and specialty chemicals. It also deals in products like
fertilizers, bromine compounds, catalyst, sodium and sodium compounds, dye
intermediates, inks and resins, phosphorous, paint chemicals, coatings, isobutyl,
zinc sulfate, zinc chloride, water treatment chemicals, organic surfactants, pigment
dispersions, industrial aerosols, and many more (D&B 2007).
For the estimation of effluent treatment cost of inorganic and organic chemicals,
we considered primarily the dye and dye intermediates industry. Apart from many
other pollutants, it primarily releases COD. Table 4.54 shows an example of COD
load generated from a dye and dye intermediate plant in India provided by the
CPCB (20022003a). It is estimated that for the production of 70 t/day of dyes,
about 59 mld of wastewater is generated containing 89 tons of COD every day.
COD load works out to be 77 t/day for all classes of dye stuff after treatment. Thus,
the effluent treatment plant on an average removes 86.51 % of COD. However, to
remove this amount of COD, the plant has to incur some capital cost and operation
and maintenance cost of the ETP (Table 4.55).
It has been found that for a large-scale industry, operation cost is around 20 % of
total capital cost (Murty and Kumar 2011). Therefore, 20 % of the capital cost of the
effluent treatment plant of chemical industry (Table 4.56) is around Rs. 1,728 lakh.
Further, distribution across inorganic and organic chemicals was done on the basis
of COD release. The COD release is higher from organic compared to inorganic
chemicals. Thus, the COD removal cost is higher for organic chemicals relative to
inorganic chemicals (Table 4.56). The different items of operation and maintenance
under the effluent treatment of these chemical plants are derived from a typical
4.3 Cost Analysis
91
Table 4.55 ETP capital cost

for different units of dye and
dye intermediates in India
(Rs. lakh)
A.P. (Jeedimetla)
Patancheru
Vatva
Ankleshwar
Subtotal
Other ETP total
Grand total
ETP capital cost (Rs. lakh)

381.0
728.0
4,401.0
680.0
6,190.0
2,451.8
8,641.8
Table 4.56 Total operation and maintenance cost of organic and inorganic chemicals sector in
India
Organic chemical
Inorganic chemical
Total
COD
267
216.9
483.9
Ratio of COD release from

organic and inorganic chemicals
0.551
0.448
1
Total cost
(Rs. lakh)
953.65
774.71
1,728.36
Table 4.57 Operation and maintenance cost for a typical plant of inorganic and organic chemicals
and its components
Operation cost
Items
(20002001) rupees
Service contract/salary 554,000
of operator
Cost of chemicals
570,000
Maintenance cost
100,000
Electricity charge
1,270,000
O and M cost total
2,494,000
Capital cost
20,300,000
Operation cost
(19992000) rupees
204,166
Average ratio of total

cost and each item cost
0.112
2,484,540
581,652
957,760
4,228,118
7,092,500
0.454
0.101
0.331
1
chemical plant. A sample of expenditure on operation and maintenance for two

different years is given in Table 4.57. We took the average of two years expenditure
and calculate the different categories of expenditure on operation and maintenance
for the effluent treatment plant of inorganic and organic chemicals in India.
Table 4.58 presents the item-wise operation and maintenance cost for organic and
inorganic chemicals sector in India for the year 20062007. The cost of chemicals
and electricity charges covers almost 78 % which is relatively high compared to
other plants.
92

cost of inorganic and organic
chemicals sector in India for
20062007 (Rs. lakh)
Items
Service contract/salary of operator
Cost of chemicals
Maintenance cost
Electricity charge
O and M cost total
Organic
107.559
433.339
96.704
316.046
953.65
Inorganic
87.375
352.024
78.557
256.741
774.7
Table 4.59 Total operation and maintenance cost and its allocation for other chemicals sector
Items
Service contract/salary of operator
Cost of chemicals
Maintenance cost
Electricity charge
Total operation and maintenance cost
4.3.1.15
Ratio of each item to total

operation and maintenance cost
0.222
0.228
0.040
0.509
1
Rs. lakh
57,725.27
59,392.43
10,419.72
132,330.5
259,867.9
Other Chemicals
To derive the operation and maintenance cost of effluent treatment for other
chemical sector, we considered mainly the pharmaceutical industry. We have also
used the ratio of total operation and maintenance cost (Rs. 2,494,000) to total
revenue (Rs. 158,192,615) of a typical effluent plants provided by Chokhavatia
Associates 2012. Together with the total gross output of other chemical plant in
India which is Rs. 16,483,235 lakh (I-O table 20062007) for the year 20062007,
we calculated the total operation and maintenance cost for the effluent treatment of
other chemicals in India for the year 20062007, which is Rs. 259,867.9 lakh.
Furthermore, the estimation of different categories under operation and maintenance cost is taken from a typical pharmaceutical plant in India which is shown in
Table 4.59. The operation and maintenance category shows high electricity charges
similar to the inorganic and organic chemicals sectors, but the cost for chemicals is
slightly lower.
4.3.2
Abatement Cost in Summary Form
The pollution abatement costs of different industries as estimated using the different sources are presented in summary form in Table 4.60.
Table 4.61 records the percentage share of different categories of operation and
maintenance cost of the different industries. A look at the table reveals the variation
of the components of cost within a sector and also among the sectors. We find that
cost of energy dominates in sectors like dairy, livestock, food, leather, paper, and
4.3 Cost Analysis
93
Table 4.60 Pollution abatement cost of different industries in India for the year 20062007
(Rs. lakh)
I-O
sector
number
3
4
7
8
10
11
12
14
15
17
18
19
22
23
26
27
Dairy
Livestock
Oil and gas
(mining)
Sugar
Tea, coffee, and
beverages
Food products
Cotton textile
Jute, hemp, and
mesta textile
Miscellaneous
textile
Paper and paper
products
Leather and
leather
products
Rubber and rubber products
Inorganic
chemicals
Organic
chemicals
Paints, varnishes,
and lacquers
Other chemicals
Total
Energy
Chemicals
Labor
Other
operation and
maintenance
7,689.347
38,062.59
9,039.303
1,344.313
4,531.199
14,048.16
1,460.17
7,975.118
5,247.281
418.6539
5,074.839
2,382.785
10,912.48
55,643.75
30,717.53
75,720.24
24,752.26
77,003.74
166,501.6
26,523.39
14,894.82
22,245.62
36,959.15
201,493
243,107.8
1,631.788
23,708.68
198.0631
244.7439
74,897
293.5954
64,160.27
331.6244
130.5139
3,061.049
9.192477
2,300.641
165,827
538.88
1,338.572
80,622.01
1,338.572
1,179.213
84,478.37
1,938.227
451.6313
195.5126
328.3796
2,913.75
521.7875
87.98769
143.2358
61.38676
814.3977
985.7871
3,493.125
1,521.088
6,000
256.7414
352.0248
87.37591
78.55795
774.7
316.0467
433.3399
107.5591
96.70426
953.65
2,147.345
4,299.731
1,120.354
466.8141
8,034.244
132,330.5
320,637.3
59,392.43
487,703
57,725.27
183,125.2
10,419.72
82,912.59
259,867.9
1,074,378
Total
other chemicals, while chemicals cost is high in tea, coffee beverages, rubber, and
miscellaneous textile. The contribution of labor is not significant in most of the
sectors except in jute, hemp, and mesta textile and cotton textile. These variations in
the component of cost structure will have some impact on output and prices of the
whole economy which will be rather evident in our subsequent analysis.
The cost data that have been estimated are incorporated in the inputoutput
framework through introduction of a new sector, the clean water sector, as
presented in the row and column 39 of the I-O table presented in Appendix A. Of
the running cost items, cost of power and chemicals (inorganic) has been treated
endogenously into the system, while other cost of operation and maintenance and
the salaries of the staffs are treated exogenously as components of gross value
added.
94
Table 4.61 Share of different categories of operation and maintenance cost of different industries
in India
I-O sector
number
3
4
7
8
10
11
12
14
15
17
18
19
22
23
26
Energy
Dairy
0.704638
Livestock
0.684041
Oil and gas (mining)
0.294272
Sugar
0.375796
0.101816
Food products
0.709278
Cotton textile
0.142972
Jute, hemp, and mesta textile 0.367546
0.015845
0.6652
Leather and leather prod
0.640704
Rubber and rubber products 0.164298
Inorganic chemicals
0.331407
Organic chemicals
0.331407
Paints, varnishes, and
0.267274
lacquers
27
Other chemicals
0.704638
Total
0.684041
4.4
Other operation
and maintenance
0.0383647
0.0912023
0.0775708
0.1104039
0.1520278
0.0567471
0.0184593
0.0170585
0.0139588
0.1127
0.0753769
0
0.1014043
0.1014043
0.0581031
Chemicals
0.12319
0.081432
0.457334
0.382166
0.684888
0.106343
0.451657
0
0.954351
0.155
0.10804
0.582188
0.454401
0.454401
0.535176
Labor
0.133807
0.143325
0.170824
0.131634
0.061268
0.127642
0.386911
0.615396
0.015845
0.0671
0.175879
0.253515
0.112787
0.112787
0.139447
0.12319
0.081432
0.133807 0.0383647
0.143325 0.0912023
Limitation of Data
Though we have made a modest attempt to estimate the generation of different

types of pollutants and also treatment cost (abatement cost) of different industries,
the problems being faced in data collection, processing, and analysis cannot be
ignored. Some of them are as follows:
1. Adequately detailed, appropriate, and recent up-to-date data on different types of
water pollutants generated by different industries of the Indian economy were
lacking.
2. Detailed pollution abatement activities of different industries were not available
in required form. The cost data of pollution abatement activities could be
estimated for only 16 industries due to data constraints.
Discussion and analysis of results have to be considered with care because of
these data problems.
Appendix 4.A.1: Aggregation Scheme of the InputOutput Table of 20062007
95
Appendix 4.A.1: Aggregation Scheme of the InputOutput

Table of 20062007
Serial
number
1
Aggregated sectors
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Milk and milk

products
Livestock
4
5
6
7
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Mining and
quarrying
8
9
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
10
Tea, coffee, and

beverages
Food products
Cotton textile
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Woolen and silk

textile
Jute, hemp, and
mesta textiles
Miscellaneous
textile products
Wood and wood
products
Paper and paper
products
Leather and leather
products
Rubber products
Plastic products
Petroleum and coal
tar products
Inorganic heavy
chemicals
Organic heavy
chemicals
Sectors in inputoutput table

Paddy, wheat, jowar, bajra, maize, gram, pulses,
fruits, vegetables, other crops
Sugarcane, groundnut, coconut, other oilseeds,
jute, cotton, tea, coffee, rubber, tobacco, forestry and logging
Animal services (agricultural), poultry and eggs,
other livestock products and gobar gas
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Natural gas, crude petroleum, iron ore, manganese ore, bauxite, copper ore, other metallic
minerals, lime stone, mica, other nonmetallic
minerals
Sugar, khandsari-boora
Hydrogenated oil (vanaspati), edible oils other
than vanaspati
Tea and coffee processing, beverages
Miscellaneous food products, tobacco products
Khadi, cotton textiles (handlooms), cotton
textiles
Woolen textiles, silk textiles, art silk, synthetic
fiber textiles
Carpet weaving, readymade garments, miscellaneous textile products
Furniture and fixtures-wooden, wood and wood
products
Paper, paper products and newsprint, printing and
publishing
Leather footwear, leather and leather products
Sector
number in
I-O table
17, 1820
817, 25
21
2224
26
27
2837
3839
4041
42, 44
4345
4647
4850
51
5254
5556
5758
5960
Rubber products
Plastic products
Petroleum products, coal tar products
61
62
6364
65
66
(continued)
96
Serial
number
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Aggregated sectors
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Paints, varnishes,
and lacquers
Other chemicals
Synthetic fibers,
resin
Other nonmetallic
mineral
products
Iron and steel
31
Machinery and
metal products
32
Electrical
machinery
33
Transport
equipment
34
Other machinery
35
36
Construction
Electricity gas and
water supply
Transport
services and
communication
37
38
Other services
Source: CSO (2011)
Sectors in inputoutput table

Fertilizers
Pesticides
Sector
number in
I-O table
67
68
69
Drugs and medicines, soaps, cosmetics and

glycerin, other chemicals
7071, 73
Structural clay products, cement, other nonmetallic mineral prods.
7476
Iron and steel ferro alloys, iron and steel casting

and forging, iron and steel foundries
Nonferrous basic metals, hand tools, hardware,
miscellaneous metal products, tractors and
agri. implements, industrial machinery (F &
T), Industrial machinery (others), machine
tools, other nonelectrical machinery
Electrical industrial machinery, electrical wires
and cables, batteries, electrical appliances,
communication equipments, other electrical
machinery, electronic equipments (including
TV)
Ships and boats, rail equipments, motor vehicles,
motor cycles and scooters, bicycles, cycle,
rickshaw, other transport equipments
Watches and clocks, medical, precision and
optical instruments, gems and jewelry,
aircraft and spacecraft, miscellaneous
manufacturing
Construction
7779
Railway transport services, land transport

including via pipeline, water transport, air
transport, supporting and aux. transport
activities, storage and warehousing, and
communication
Trade, hotels and restaurants, banking, insurance,
ownership of dwellings, education and
research, medical and health, business services, computer and related activities, legal
services, real estate activities, renting of
machinery and equipment, O.com, social and
personal services, other services, public
administration
72
8087
8894
95100
101105
106
107108
109115
116-130
References
97
References
AARRO (1996) Environmental degradation and its implication on rural development, report of the
International Workshop. Afro-Asian Rural Reconstruction Organization, Cairo
Banu JR, Kalippan S, Yeom I-T (2007) The two stage anaerobic treatment of dairy wastewater
using HUASB with PUF and PVC carrier. Biotechnol Biopro Eng 12:257264
Chacko CT, Padmakumar G, Tiwari S, Ramesh V (2010) India: growth efficiency gains and social
concerns. In: Gerber P, Mooney H, Dijkman J, Tarawali S, Haan de C (eds) Livestock in a
changing landscape: experiences and regional perspectives, vol 2. Island Press, Washington,
DC, pp 5573
and International Policy Issues EERC Working Paper series, NIP-1, Government of India
Chokhavatia Associates (2012) Pharmaceuticals industries in India. http://chokhavatia.com/ourprojects/pharmaceuticals-industries/
Coffee Board (2010) Database on coffee JulySeptember 2010. Market Intelligence Statistical
Unit Coffee Board, Bangalore
CPCB (19921993) Comprehensive industry document on dairy industry, Comprehensive Industrial Document Series, COINDS/40/199293. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CPCB (20002001) Biological treatment of textile mill effluent: a case study, Information Manual
on Pollution abatement and Cleaner Technologies Series, Impacts/5/20002001. Central
Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CPCB (20022003a) Assessment of industrial pollution. Programme of objective series, PROBES
92/200203. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CPCB (20022003b) Assessment of industrial pollution. Programme of objective series, PROBES
92/2002-03, Annexure IX Oil Refineries. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CPCB (20042005) Environmental status of silk screen printing at Seerampore, West Bengal
(a case study), Program Objective Series, PROBES/100/20045. Central Pollution Control
Board, New Delhi
CPCB (2006a) Comprehensive industry document on coffee processing industry, Comprehensive
Industrial Document Series, COINDS/62/200607. Central Pollution Control Board, New
Delhi
CPCB (2006b) Oil and gas drilling and extraction industry, Comprehensive Industry Series,
COINDS/61/20067. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CPCB (2007a) Comprehensive industrial document for cashew seed processing industries, Comprehensive Industry Document Series, COINDS/75/2007. Central Pollution Control Board,
New Delhi
CPCB (2007b) Development of standards for rubber product manufacturing industries, Comprehensive Industry Document Series, COINDS/67/2007. Central Pollution Control Board, New
Delhi
CPCB (2007c) Advance methods for treatment of textile industry effluents, Resource Recycling
Series, RERES/2007. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CPCB (20072008) Comprehensive industry document on iron ore mining, Comprehensive
industry document series, COINDS/77/200708. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CPCB (20082009) Comprehensive industrial document with environmental standard and guidelines for pulse, wheat and rice mills, Comprehensive Industry Document Series, COINDS/76/
200809. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi
CSO (2011) Input-output transaction table 20067. Central Statistical Organisation, Ministry of
Programme and Implementation, Government of India
D&B (2007) Indian chemical industry. Industry overview, D&B industry research service. http://
www.dnb.co.in/Chemical_2010/orgChapter1.asp
DCCD (2011) Directorate of Cashewnut & Cocoa Development. Department of Agriculture &
Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India. http://dccd.gov.in/stat.htm
98
DIPP (2008) Water and agro industry: Mysore mills estimates: research India analysis. Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of
India
FAO (2013) World statistical compendium for raw hides and skins, leather and leather footwear
19932012. Market and Policy Analyses of Raw Materials, Horticulture and Tropical Products
Team, Trade and Markets Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome
GOI (20092010) Economic survey of India 200910. Government of India, New Delhi
GOI (2011a) State of Indian agriculture 201112. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation,
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. http://agricoop.nic.in/sia111213312.pdf
GOI (2011b) Slaughter house waste and dead animals. In: Solid waste management manual.
Government of India, New Delhi, pp 6572
GOI (2013) Milk production in India. National Dairy Development Board, Department of Animal
Husbandry and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi
IBEF (2013) Agriculture sector in India. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.ibef.org/industry/
agriculture-india.aspx
India Finance and Investment Guide (2013) Rubber commodity. Retrieved from http://finance.
indiamart.com/markets/commodity/rubber.html
IUF (2011) Indian dairy industry. IUF dairy industry research, IUF dairy division, International
Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers
Associations (IUF). Retrieved from http://cms.iuf.org/sites/cms.iuf.org/files/Indian%20Dairy
%20Industry.pdf
Livestock Census (2011) Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Animal Husbandry Statistics
Division, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of India
Ministry of Textiles (20092010) Textile industry overview. Annual report, Ministry of Textiles,
Government of India
MOEF (2003) Charter on corporate responsibility for environmental protection. Pollution Control
Implementation Division III, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
Retrieved from http://www.downtoearth.org.in/dte/userfiles/images/Environmental_Protec
tion.pdf
MOEF (2009) State of environment report. Report, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. Retrieved on January 2013 from http://moef.nic.in/soer /2009/SoE%
20Report _2009.pdf
Murty MN, Kumar S (2011) Water pollution in India: an economic appraisal. In: India infrastructure report 2011: water policy and performance for sustainable development. IDFC/Oxford
Murty MN, Kumar S, Paul M (2006) Environmental regulation, productive efficiency and cost of
pollution abatement: a case study of the sugar industry in India. J Environ Manage 79(1):19
Nagaraj M, Kumar A (2008) Distillery wastewater treatment and disposal. Retrieved from http://
www.wordwendang.com/en/
Rao TB, Chonde SG, Bhosale PR, Jadhav AS, Raut PD (2011) Environmental audit of sugar
factory: a case study of Kumbhi Kasari sugar factory, Kuditre, Kolhapur. Univers J Environ
Res Technol 1:5157
Rout SK (2012) Wastewater treatment technologies. Int J Water Resour Arid Environ 2
(5):150153
Sankar U (2000) Common effluent treatment plants: an institutional arrangement for pollution
control in small scale tanneries in India. Retrieved on November 2011, from www.elaw.org/
system/files/India2000.pdf
Tare V, Gupta S, Bose P (2012) Case studies on biological treatment of tannery effluents in India. J
Air Waste Manage Assoc 53(8):976982
UNEP (2002) Cleaner production worldwide, vol II. United Nations Environment Programme,
Paris
References
99
UNIDO. Pollution from food processing factories and environmental protection Chapter 25.
Retrieved on December 2012 from http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/import/32129_
25PollutionfromFoodProcessing.7.pdf
USITC (2001) Indias textile and apparel industry: growth potential and trade and investment
opportunities, Staff research study 27. Office of Industries, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC
World Bank (2011) India: priorities for agriculture and rural development. Retrieved March 2012,
from http://go.worldbank.org/8EFXZBL3Y0
Chapter 5
Experiment with Models: Results

and Discussion
This chapter analyzes the results of the application of the models developed in
Chap. 3. Results on direct and indirect water pollution requirement and water
pollution content of the total final demand of different sectors of India will be
presented followed by the discussion on the effects of pollution abatement costs on
output and prices of different goods and services.
5.1
Results on Direct and Indirect Water Pollution

Requirement
We have estimated the direct and total (direct and indirect) water pollution generation coefficients of different sectors, respectively, for the year 20062007. The ten
sets of pollution output coefficient that make up matrix W are used in the computation. As it is well known, the inverse (I A)1, where A represents structural
(input coefficients) matrix of a given economy, describes the total, that is, direct and
indirect effect of one lakh rupees worth increase in the final demand for the
products of any given industry on the total output of this and every other industry.
The amounts of each one of the ten different kinds of water pollutants generated in
connection with the increase in level of all output contributing directly or indirectly
to deliver to final users of one lakh rupees worth of each particular kind of good
are represented accordingly by the matrix product, W* (I A)1.
In other words, direct and indirect water pollution coefficients of the Indian
industries are given by the matrix product R0 W * (I A) 1.
Here:
R0 is the direct and indirect water pollution coefficient matrix of different sectors
(10 38).

101
102
5 Experiment with Models: Results and Discussion
W is the direct water pollution coefficient matrix of different sectors (10 38).
(I A)1 is the Leontief matrix multiplier of different sectors (38 38).
We noticed that for all industries, total coefficient is significantly higher compared to the corresponding data in direct coefficient (Appendices 5.A.1 and 5.A.2).
The sector having zero direct coefficients signifies that the sector is non-polluting;
however, the corresponding nonzero entry in total coefficient stresses that though
the sector is non-polluting, it indirectly participates in the overall pollutiongenerating machinery. Further, the type of pollutants released is also differing
across sectors. For example, the other machinery sector generates only BOD,
COD, and phenol out of ten pollutants. Electricity sector generates only suspended
solids and marginal COD.
Due to lack of data, some sectors such as transport and communication, other
services, and electrical machinery are assumed to be non-polluting in these exercises. However, the total pollution coefficient emphasizes that though the above
sectors are assumed non-polluting, they indirectly participate in the overall pollution generation (through the inputs they use). Direct total pollution generation in
transport equipment, electrical machinery, construction, and transport and communication services is absent, but (through the inputs they use) they generate pollution
indirectly at a certain rate of SS, DS, oil and grease, BOD, and COD, respectively,
per lakh rupees of the products of these sectors.
Figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 present the direct coefficient of four important
water pollutants: COD, BOD, SS, DS respectively. These figures capture the sectors
having the highest direct coefficients. The highest contribution of DS per lakh
rupees is generated by cotton textile sector, while for suspended solids, it is by
electricity. Leather and leather products, milk and milk products, and paper products are also in the top lists of these two pollutants. An interesting feature is noticed
for the direct coefficients of BOD and COD. Most of the sectors are common in
these pollutants: agriculture; milk and milk products; livestock; jute, hemp, and
mesta textiles; tea, coffee, and beverages; and rubber products. Apart from that,
cotton textile, leather and leather products, and paper and paper products are also
prominent in case of COD release.
The contribution of total coefficients is observed for almost all the sectors even
though direct coefficients for some of the sectors reveal zero.
Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show total coefficients for 12 sectors across four important
pollutants: BOD, COD, SS, and DS. We noticed that most of the sectors are
common in direct and total coefficient across pollutants. For example, sectors like
electricity; jute, hemp, and mesta textiles; cotton textile; agriculture; and paper and
paper products are common in both direct and total coefficient list of suspended
solids. The new entries of metallic sector, chemicals, pesticides, and transport
equipment are due to the indirect influence of the sectors. This is quite evident
5.1 Results on Direct and Indirect Water Pollution Requirement
103
Fig. 5.1 Direct coefficients of COD for important sectors (thousands tons of COD per lakh rupees
of output for the year 20062007) (Source: Results from the study)
Fig. 5.2 Direct coefficients of BOD for important sectors (thousands tons of BOD per lakh rupees
of output for the year 20062007) (Source: Results from the study)
through inputoutput analysis and also helpful for the policy makers. In most cases,
the policy makers identify the sectors looking at the direct water pollution coefficient and suggest policies on how to minimize that without considering the values
of the total coefficient. Unless the total coefficient is considered, the policies
104
Fig. 5.3 Direct coefficients of SS for important sectors (thousands tons of SS per lakh rupees of
output for the year 20062007) (Source: Results from the study)
Fig. 5.4 Direct coefficients of DS for important sectors (thousands tons of DS per lakh rupees of
output for the year 20062007) (Source: Results from the study)
suggested may not yield the desired results. The total coefficients of sectors
identified as top for the dissolved solids are almost common in direct coefficients.
The sectors identified as top 12 under BOD and COD also release DS. Sectors at
the top of the direct coefficient list are also present in the total coefficient list.
Between BOD and COD (Table 5.1), we observed that most sectors are common in
the list of total coefficients. Apart from these common sectors, organic chemical,
paper products, and oil and vanaspati are important sectors in terms of BOD, while
textile group plays a large role in COD release. As we mentioned, the type of
pollutant released mostly depends on the type of sectors; however, the top sectors in
5.1 Results on Direct and Indirect Water Pollution Requirement
105
Table 5.1 Total coefficients of BOD and COD for selected sectors (thousand tons of pollutants
directly and indirectly discharged per lakh rupees of output for the year 20062007)
Sectors
Agriculture
Livestock
Jute, hemp, mesta
Food products
Rubber products
Pesticides
Oil and vanaspati
Source: Results from the study
BOD
0.001227
0.000895
0.000872
0.000617
0.000451
0.000361
0.000277
0.000229
0.000192
0.000159
0.000150
0.000115
Sectors
Livestock
Cotton textile
Agriculture
Jute, hemp, mesta
Food products
Pesticides
Rubber products
COD
0.003893
0.002604
0.002018
0.001870
0.001241
0.000923
0.000832
0.000764
0.000629
0.000494
0.000403
0.000359
Table 5.2 Total coefficients of SS and DS for selected sectors (thousand tons of pollutants
directly and indirectly discharged per lakh rupees of output for the year 20062007)
Sectors
Electricity gas and water
Cotton textile
Jute, hemp, mesta
Other nonmetallic mineral
Iron and steel
Agriculture
Transport equipment
Pesticides
SS
0.012485
0.001440
0.001327
0.001101
0.001092
0.000885
0.000857
0.000810
0.000800
0.000796
0.000721
0.000718
Sectors
Cotton textile
Rubber products
Other chemicals
Livestock
Plastic products
DS
0.007981
0.001358
0.000497
0.000470
0.000362
0.000250
0.000213
0.000178
0.000071
0.000068
0.000062
0.000056
the BOD and COD list are almost the same as that for suspended solids and
dissolved solids. Overall observation from both the direct and total coefficient
reveals that the water pollution intensive sectors are textile group, light manufacturing, agriculture, and agri-food sectors. The detail list of sectors contributing to
direct and total coefficients is given in Appendices 5.A.1 and 5.A.2, respectively.
106
5.2
Total Amount of Pollution in Total Final Demand

and Its Component
In this section, we determine the total amount of the different types of pollution
generated from total final demand and different components of final demand of the
different industries. In matrix notations, the complete set of such multiplication can
be described as follows:
RRY
R is the amount of each one of the ten different kinds of pollutants (SS, DS,
chloride, sulfide, oil and grease, phenol, zinc and others, BOD, and COD)
generated directly and indirectly to meet the total final demand of the different
sectors (10 38) of the years 20062007.
R* is the direct and indirect water pollution coefficient matrix of the different
sectors (10 38).
Y is the diagonal matrix of total final demand (38 38).
Tables 5.3 and 5.4 show the results of such computations. In this section,
matrices are transposed for the sake of conveniences. Rows of the table offer the
total amount of different types of pollutant generated in the years 20062007 by
total final demand of different sectors. Some figures in table show negative entries
as the total final demand of those particular industries is negative.
The total amount of different types of water pollution with respect to total final
demand of all the sectors taken together and its components are shown in Table 5.3.
It appears from Table 5.3 that in that particular year, 203, 228.84, 66, 201.23,
3, 144.41, 81, 668.44, and 174,803.13 thousand tons of suspended solids, dissolved
solids, chloride, BOD, and COD, respectively, are generated by total final demand
of all the sectors.
Examining the entries in final demand (Appendix 5.A.3), it is observed that the
additional output of SS generated to the delivery to final users of one additional lakh
rupees worth of sugar product was responsible for the generation of 425.28 thousand tons of SS. Similar calculation has been done for each of the ten pollutants and
other components of final demand (private final consumption expenditure, government final consumption expenditure, gross fixed capital formation, change in stock,
and export and import). Results of such computations are shown in the table,
respectively.
Final
demand
SS
203,229
DS
66,201.2
Chloride
3,144.41
Sulfide
1,227.53
Oil/grease
3,737.28
Phenol
426.92
Zinc
39.07
Others
14,292.2
BOD
81,668.4
COD
174,803
Private final
consumption
expenditure
113,148.71
46,567.68
1,850.72
691.54
3,138.88
190.4
6.3
11,495.63
69,972.96
144,862.52
Export
39,071.1
19,960.5
1,138.56
457.67
669.46
554.21
5.69
1,865.63
9,041.72
20,227.4
Import
50,908.9
5,497.36
474.86
187.06
775.28
849.43
11.76
1,288.75
7,814.35
10,932.6
Govt. final
consumption
expenditure
21,171.24
966.3
78.56
40.56
154.95
27.86
1.08
574.63
2,522.12
5,109.72
Change in
stock
6,025.84
1,926.64
137.16
56.18
5.15
46.63
0.53
474.29
1,912.34
4,400.72
Gross final
capital
formulation
74,720.838
2,277.446
414.277
168.645
554.417
457.252
38.293
1,170.811
6,033.65
11,135.41
Table 5.3 Total amount of different water pollutant contents in final demand and its component of India for the year 20062007 (figures in 000 tons per lakh
rupees of final demand)
5.2 Total Amount of Pollution in Total Final Demand and Its Component
107
108
Table 5.4 Effects of pollution control cost on output of different goods and services (lakh rupees)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
Other nonmetallic mineral products
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machinery
Construction
Transport services and communication
Other services
Clean water
Total
New gross output

with clean water
57,661,454.32
15,790,278.60
14,441,099.20
8,598,718.26
4,015,763.06
4,772,565.13
9,477,488.46
4,109,031.14
5,052,639.51
8,506,362.14
16,860,115.04
7,753,163.20
5,130,943.06
608,795.74
11,261,700.17
2,222,129.05
5,970,355.37
2,217,642.02
3,995,537.58
5,588,451.66
29,586,879.67
4,962,070.24
3,933,195.32
4,811,474.08
1,196,137.06
2,669,184.77
16,641,887.60
4,085,359.73
9,762,911.43
25,989,543.16
34,707,600.05
37,502,298.47
15,198,756.07
12,159,213.04
90,703,863.15
20,323,054.42
72,726,331.66
214,012,011.26
3,029,765.14
799,004,079.02
Old gross
output
57,629,197
15,759,855
14,438,630
8,588,824
4,015,304
4,636,815
9,186,905
4,102,013
5,047,260
8,496,684
16,848,685
7,750,841
5,125,327
605,491
11,256,847
2,206,365
5,928,380
2,212,585
3,982,413
5,550,096
29,303,980
4,404,579
3,712,881
4,780,094
1,174,691
2,656,868
16,483,235
4,019,046
9,742,535
25,940,192
34,583,931
37,431,227
15,185,879
12,103,599
90,623,003
19,268,534
72,472,275
213,520,795
3,025,939
793,801,798
Percentage
change
0.06
0.19
0.02
0.12
0.01
2.93
3.16
0.17
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.03
0.11
0.55
0.04
0.71
0.71
0.23
0.33
0.69
0.97
12.65
5.93
0.66
1.83
0.46
0.96
1.65
0.21
0.19
0.36
0.19
0.08
0.46
0.09
5.47
0.35
0.23
0.13
0.66
5.3 Effects of Pollution Abatement Cost on Output
109
Table 5.5 Impact on output by different categories

Category
Sectors
Above 10 %
Inorganic chemicals
Above 5 %
Electricity gas and water supply; organic heavy chemicals
Above 1 %
Coal and lignite; mining and quarrying; pesticides; synthetic fiber, resin
Below 1 %
The rest of sectors
5.3
Effects of Pollution Abatement Cost on Output
This section will present the effects of pollution abatement cost on output. We have
conducted an experiment with pollution abatement cost data (based on the extended
inputoutput model as described earlier in Chap. 3) that resulted in a new set of
outputs and prices as formally illustrated through Tables 5.4 and 5.5. We have
augmented the original inputoutput system with incorporation of a clean water
sector (Chap. 3).
Table 5.5 shows that output has increased for all the sectors in the economy with
the consideration of pollution abatement costs. To have a closer look at the effects
on output, the sectors could be grouped (as presented in Table 5.5) under three
broad categories, depending on percentage effect on its output (namely, above
10 %, above 5 %, above 1 %, and below 1 %).
Due to the introduction of clean water sector in the original inputoutput model,
a revised gross output which is 0.65 % more than the actual total output is
generated. It is seen that inorganic chemicals sector experiences a large output
increase of 12.65 %, from lakh rupees 4,404,579 to lakh rupees 4,962,070. An
increase of more than 5 % is observed for electricity gas and water supply and
organic heavy chemicals sectors as electricity and chemicals are essential inputs for
all pollution control activities such as ETP, CETP, and any small-scale pollution
control strategy. Four sectors experienced more than 1 % increase (but below 5 %)
in output due to pollution control. Among them, pesticides and synthetic fiber and
resin are most important. There are some sectors that despite seeing less than 1 %
increase in output are significant such as fertilizer; petro coal products; plastic
products; rubber products; other chemicals; paper and paper products; wood and
wood products; paints, varnishes, and lacquers; machinery; and metal and metal
products. These sectors may be indirectly involved in the process of reducing
pollution leading to the small increase in output.
Here we noticed backward and forward linkages across sectors. As the clean
water sector makes use of power and chemical inputs, the demand for these sectors
increases, thus resulting in their increased production. This, in turn, increases the
demand for products like coal and lignite, mining minerals, and other chemicals
used as inputs in the production of power and chemicals, which further increases the
demand for goods used in their production (involving again power, chemicals, and
others). Changes in the demand for or production of goods tend to give rise to
changes in the demand for or production of goods used in producing them, causing
110
output increases for all the sectors of the economy. This is because the sectors are
all interlinked with or interdependent on each other directly or indirectly as
modeled by inputoutput method. The higher percentage increase (as depicted
from column 3 Table 5.4) for inorganic chemicals; electricity, gas and water
supply; coal and lignite; and mining sectors indicates that these are sectors having
extensive linkage with the demand for clean water.
5.4
Effects of Pollution Abatement Cost on Prices
Considering the treatment activity undertaken, there is a value-added vector with a

nonzero element (v2) and nonzero matrix element A12, A21, A22 (Eq. 3.7 in Chap. 3).
Whereas when the treatment is not undertaken, all of these terms disappear.
Therefore, prices for all products will be different and higher in the former case
than in the latter case.
The added cost will of course be included in the price of the marketed products.
Any shift in cost will tend to have an effect on prices. The direct cost of clean water
production is not the whole effect. Since many industries are affected, the cost of
purchased intermediate goods and services will also rise unevenly across the
economy. Almost all sectors are impacted by the implementation of pollution
abatement activities (clean water) as evident from Table 5.6.
Table 5.6 shows that prices have also increased for all the sectors of the
economy. The explanation behind it is similar to that of output increase. The
increase in price is the outcome of a new gross value added derived from the
addition of salaries to the staff and cost of operation and maintenance because of the
incorporation of an additional sector, the clean water. As a result, the price increase
is not high for the sectors in which demand or production percentage increase is
high but is high for sectors for which pollution abatement costs have been available.
The reason is that additional cost in the form of salaries of the staff and cost of
operation and maintenance by convention influence the economic decision (of price
fixing) of the sectors.
Moreover, direct as well as indirect effects of the increased demand for and
production of goods used as inputs by the clean water sector (as reflected through
the extended [I A]1 matrix) also influence the price increase to some extent. The
percentage increase in price is marginal for sector which does not incur additional
cost related to pollution control measures, with the exception of agriculture, and
other agriculture.
Herein, the whole economy could also be categorized under three groups
depending on the percentage effect on its prices (namely, above 5 %, above 1 %
and below 5 %, and below 1 %) as depicted in Table 5.7.
The sectors mentioned in Table 5.7 (cotton textile, agriculture, construction, and
electricity, gas, and water) are expected to see a large increase in price due to the
clean water cost. These may be due to the increased demand for production of these
products corresponding to the clean water sectors input requirements.
5.4 Effects of Pollution Abatement Cost on Prices
111
Table 5.6 Effects of pollution control cost on prices of different goods and services (lakh rupees)
Sectors
1
Agriculture
2
Other agriculture
3
4
Livestock
5
Fishing
6
Coal and lignite
7
8
Sugar
9
Oil and vanaspati
10
11
Food products
12
Cotton textile
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Rubber products
20
Plastic products
21
22
23
24
Fertilizers
25
Pesticides
26
27
Other chemicals
28
29
30
Iron and steel
31
32
33
Transport equipment
34
Other machinery
35
Construction
36
37
38
Other services
Old price
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
New price
1.0596
1.0276
1.0299
1.0240
1.0004
1.0007
1.0134
1.0212
1.0191
1.0264
1.0496
1.1293
1.0089
1.0077
1.0150
1.0005
1.0220
1.0200
1.0174
1.0157
1.0150
1.0284
1.0123
1.0289
1.0156
1.0299
1.0333
1.0080
1.0093
1.0094
1.0091
1.0086
1.0101
1.0365
1.0654
1.0903
1.0091
1.0014
Percentage change
5.96
2.76
2.99
2.40
0.04
0.07
1.34
2.12
1.91
2.64
4.96
12.93
0.89
0.77
1.50
0.05
2.20
2.00
1.74
1.57
1.50
2.84
1.23
2.89
1.56
2.99
3.33
0.80
0.93
0.94
0.91
0.86
1.01
3.66
6.54
9.03
0.91
0.14
Apart from these sectors, other machinery, fertilizer, oil and vanaspati, sugar,
petro coal tar products, organic heavy chemicals, pesticides, inorganic heavy
chemicals, other chemicals, and livestock also experience more than 1 % but
below 5 % increase in price. Other sectors are having less than 1 % increase in
price. As mentioned before, indirect effect plays a very important role in the case of
112
Table 5.7 Impact on prices by different categories

Scenario 2
Above 5 %
Above 1 % and
below 5 %
Sectors
Cotton textile; construction; electricity gas and water supply; agriculture
Other machinery, fertilizer, oil and vanaspati, sugar, petro coal tar products,
organic heavy chemicals, pesticides, inorganic heavy chemicals, other
chemicals, livestock
Below 1 %
Other nonmetallic mineral; electrical machinery; iron and steel; synthetic
fiber, resin; machinery and metal products, etc.
price increase. Even though the clean water cost is implemented on milk and milk
products, livestock, food products, and sugar, the indirect impact affects a number
of other sectors such as agriculture, other agriculture, fertilizer, pesticides, and oil
and vanaspati. On the other hand, a direct impact is seen for sugar and food
products. For the industrial sector, there is also a similar direct and indirect impact
observed. For example, construction sector is affected indirectly.
Appendices
Appendix 5.A.1: Direct Water Pollution Output Coefficients
(Thousand Tons Discharged per Lakh Rupees of Output
at 20062007 Price)
Sectors
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
SS
0.0003723
0.0000004
0.0001366
0.0002094
0.0000021
0.0000000
0.0000123
0.0000091
0.0000064
0.0000181
0.0000041
0.0005009
0.0000412
0.0004542
0.0000320
0.0000000
0.0001102
0.0001749
DS
0.0000000
0.0000001
0.0002112
0.0000624
0.0000000
0.0000001
0.0000262
0.0000362
0.0000000
0.0004395
0.0000000
0.0070510
0.0001012
0.0000002
0.0000069
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0002525
Chloride
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000192
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000976
0.0010619
0.0000800
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0002542
Sulfide
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000449
0.0006210
0.0000435
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000020
Oil/grease
0.0000269
0.0000001
0.0000529
0.0000170
0.0000009
0.0000000
0.0000026
0.0000032
0.0000065
0.0000000
0.0000054
0.0000000
0.0000030
0.0000083
0.0000006
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
(continued)
Appendices
Sectors
Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machinery
Construction
communication
Other services
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
Rubber products
Plastic products
113
SS
0.0000205
0.0000000
0.0000103
0.0000036
0.0000433
0.0000691
0.0000766
0.0000078
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000051
DS
0.0001630
0.0000146
0.0000295
0.0001319
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000309
0.0000000
0.0000000
Chloride
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000776
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
Sulfide
0.0000026
0.0000000
0.0000038
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
Oil/grease
0.0000032
0.0000000
0.0000300
0.0000000
0.0000460
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000088
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000377
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0088113
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000066
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000

Phenol
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000001
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000004
0.0000023
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000004
0.0000000
0.0000136
Zinc
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
Others
0.0001217
0.0000000
0.0001270
0.0003169
0.0000006
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000037
0.0000000
0.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000231
0.0000023
0.0000083
0.0000666
0.0000000
0.0001632
0.0001133
0.0000063
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000212
0.0000055
BOD
0.0009952
0.0000004
0.0007796
0.0006246
0.0000041
0.0000000
0.0000007
0.0000214
0.0000369
0.0002478
0.0000034
0.0000390
0.0000352
0.0005780
0.0000515
0.0000000
0.0000841
0.0000526
0.0001288
0.0000049
0.0000034
0.0000204
0.0001980
COD
0.0015586
0.0000010
0.0017162
0.0034404
0.0000087
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000428
0.0000546
0.0005391
0.0000059
0.0022288
0.0001300
0.0011396
0.0001135
0.0000000
0.0001151
0.0002102
0.0002467
0.0000122
0.0000086
0.0000606
0.0000584
(continued)
114
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machinery
Construction
communication
Other services
Phenol
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000041
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
Zinc
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000038
Others
0.0000479
0.0000262
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000021
BOD
0.0000000
0.0000741
0.0000265
0.0000106
0.0000000
0.0000000
COD
0.0000000
0.0003371
0.0000033
0.0000602
0.0000000
0.0000031
0.0000012
0.0000031
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000175
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000047
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000126
0.0000104
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000595
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000315
0.0000032
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000185
0.0000000
0.0000026
0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000
Appendix 5.A.2: Total (Direct and Indirect) Water Pollution

Output Coefficients (Thousand Tons of Pollutants Directly
and Indirectly Discharged per Lakh Rupees Worth of Sales
of Each Industries to Final Demand)
Total pollution coefficients
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Tea, coffee and beverages
Food products
Cotton textile
SS
0.0007956
0.0001386
0.0002080
0.0004255
0.0000881
0.0004645
0.0002962
0.0001908
0.0002336
0.0003892
0.0004990
0.0014403
0.0008005
0.0013271
0.0006810
0.0003519
0.0008102
DS
0.0000100
0.0000095
0.0002134
0.0000682
0.0000375
0.0000088
0.0000324
0.0000478
0.0000134
0.0004970
0.0000365
0.0079805
0.0004699
0.0000268
0.0013581
0.0000278
0.0000284
Chloride
0.0000027
0.0000016
0.0000195
0.0000009
0.0000164
0.0000007
0.0000009
0.0000019
0.0000018
0.0000048
0.0000049
0.0000061
0.0001170
0.0010789
0.0000986
0.0000042
0.0000024
Sulfide
0.0000011
0.0000003
0.0000001
0.0000004
0.0000096
0.0000004
0.0000006
0.0000008
0.0000007
0.0000026
0.0000018
0.0000031
0.0000544
0.0006305
0.0000520
0.0000019
0.0000014
Oil/Grease
0.0000354
0.0000030
0.0000558
0.0000255
0.0000031
0.0000018
0.0000043
0.0000063
0.0000113
0.0000063
0.0000234
0.0000043
0.0000125
0.0000115
0.0000055
0.0000039
0.0000047
(continued)
Appendices
115

Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machinery
Construction
communication
Other services
SS
0.0005778
0.0006009
0.0006998
0.0004038
0.0008567
0.0008852
0.0006466
0.0007179
0.0006685
0.0005479
0.0005426
0.0011010
DS
0.0003623
0.0002499
0.0000620
0.0000557
0.0001781
0.0000460
0.0000487
0.0000396
0.0000479
0.0000715
0.0000512
0.0000260
Chloride
0.0003184
0.0000099
0.0000043
0.0000009
0.0000053
0.0000060
0.0000024
0.0000955
0.0000048
0.0000050
0.0000039
0.0000023
Sulfide
0.0000039
0.0000060
0.0000017
0.0000044
0.0000022
0.0000022
0.0000019
0.0000022
0.0000022
0.0000025
0.0000021
0.0000015
Oil/Grease
0.0000066
0.0000111
0.0000104
0.0000347
0.0000126
0.0000593
0.0000127
0.0000114
0.0000189
0.0000104
0.0000164
0.0000054
0.0010917
0.0006976
0.0006468
0.0007208
0.0003563
0.0005639
0.0124848
0.0004112
0.0000136
0.0000169
0.0000208
0.0000227
0.0000225
0.0000134
0.0000158
0.0000233
0.0000090
0.0000030
0.0000039
0.0000041
0.0000026
0.0000030
0.0000010
0.0000011
0.0000010
0.0000010
0.0000014
0.0000011
0.0000010
0.0000014
0.0000010
0.0000013
0.0000038
0.0000035
0.0000043
0.0000034
0.0000033
0.0000045
0.0000062
0.0000083
0.0001170 0.0000075 0.0000007 0.0000004 0.0000019

Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
Rubber products
Plastic products
Phenol
0.0000003
0.0000002
0.0000001
0.0000002
0.0000002
0.0000007
0.0000006
0.0000005
0.0000004
0.0000007
0.0000005
0.0000007
0.0000026
0.0000030
0.0000013
0.0000011
0.0000010
0.0000008
0.0000018
0.0000028
0.0000009
0.0000028
Zinc
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000001
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
Others
0.0001642
0.0000214
0.0001395
0.0003540
0.0000038
0.0000025
0.0000018
0.0000184
0.0000181
0.0000207
0.0000713
0.0000356
0.0000185
0.0000177
0.0000837
0.0000121
0.0002280
0.0002013
0.0000230
0.0000136
0.0000024
0.0000359
BOD
0.0012266
0.0000510
0.0008718
0.0008954
0.0000194
0.0000134
0.0000102
0.0000656
0.0001154
0.0003615
0.0004507
0.0000780
0.0001016
0.0006173
0.0001024
0.0000378
0.0001498
0.0002287
0.0001923
0.0000707
0.0000154
0.0000909
COD
0.0020176
0.0002048
0.0018697
0.0038925
0.0000494
0.0000249
0.0000177
0.0001778
0.0002450
0.0007636
0.0008320
0.0026036
0.0003593
0.0012411
0.0006294
0.0000948
0.0002277
0.0009229
0.0004028
0.0001176
0.0000301
0.0001624
(continued)
116

Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machinery
Construction
communication
Other services
Phenol
0.0000169
0.0000017
0.0000029
0.0000067
0.0000027
0.0000040
0.0000008
Zinc
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000042
Others
0.0000205
0.0000612
0.0000434
0.0000131
0.0000140
0.0000131
0.0000087
BOD
0.0002771
0.0000420
0.0001589
0.0000943
0.0000916
0.0000885
0.0000220
COD
0.0001705
0.0000612
0.0004936
0.0001096
0.0001933
0.0001140
0.0000457
0.0000029
0.0000053
0.0000025
0.0000020
0.0000253
0.0000011
0.0000013
0.0000010
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000001
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000005
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000097
0.0000063
0.0000082
0.0000070
0.0000070
0.0000091
0.0000049
0.0000072
0.0000361
0.0000387
0.0000350
0.0000322
0.0001096
0.0000411
0.0000218
0.0000377
0.0000726
0.0000517
0.0000593
0.0000598
0.0000824
0.0000884
0.0000418
0.0000659
0.0000004 0.0000000 0.0000072 0.0000375 0.0000741
Appendix 5.A.3: Total Water Pollution Content of the Total

Final Demand of Different Sectors of India for the Years
20062007 (Figures in Thousand Tons per Lakh Rupees
of Final Demand)
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
Oil/
SS
DS
Chloride Sulfide
grease
28,047.180
352.964
93.906
40.325 1,247.683
730.585
50.161
8.575
1.523
15.606
2,589.849 2,657.075 242.246
1.585 694.557
1,667.918
267.215
3.383
1.559 100.021
287.997
122.608
53.452
31.208
10.179
505.211
9.540
0.777
0.445
2.002
5,495.064 601.067 17.086 10.393 79.455
425.280
106.590
4.168
1.722
14.055
792.464
45.621
6.045
2.497
38.292
2,784.895 3,556.406
34.246
18.637
45.177
6,968.977
510.193
68.348
24.504 326.791
6,926.438 38,378.429
29.568
14.776
20.881
2,646.234 1,553.558 386.748 179.704
41.312
187.270
3.786 152.242
88.964
1.630
6,956.574 13,873.530 1,006.801 531.674
56.336
15.890
1.256
0.190
0.085
0.174
(continued)
Appendices
117
SS
Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machinery
Construction
communication
Other services
Total
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
Rubber products
DS
Chloride
Sulfide
Oil/
grease
991.176
872.565
952.330
938.712
1,088.405
131.860
962.014
300.668
70.788
261.464
3,690.583
490.702
1,536.285
34.784
547.175
396.046
83.112
150.095
27.413
50.032
22.635
3.902
18.719
481.357
46.265
36.239
2.993
480.806
15.686
5.719
2.407
0.818
6.540
1.120
9.415
1.875
33.463
3.557
3.145
1.696
5.904
9.494
2.308
11.989
0.345
2.434
0.862
0.212
0.864
16.980
1.886
2.124
5.713
10.014
17.517
13.981
93.426
1.936
64.417
5.922
1.127
7.408
70.238
14.797
7.481
1,318.846
5,216.749
13,277.001
7,666.044
1,080.839
43,064.693
40,741.259
14,019.336
16.488
126.389
427.006
241.886
68.202
1,020.483
51.444
794.576
10.822
22.567
79.503
43.223
7.747
228.822
3.255
38.971
1.244
7.328
28.461
11.365
3.030
106.772
3.199
44.292
4.560
25.830
88.627
36.406
9.864
345.014
20.100
284.578
16,404.083 1,055.877 100.642

52.290 266.543
203,228.843 66,201.234 3,144.410 1,227.531 3,737.282
Phenol
11.464
1.207
0.805
0.810
0.695
0.774
10.483
1.114
1.429
5.019
7.248
3.556
8.509
0.424
13.698
0.047
1.269
1.186
2.928
Zinc
Others
BOD
COD
0.501 5,787.176 43,239.777 71,124.675
0.045
112.743
268.655
1,080.059
0.029 1,737.619 10,856.176 23,282.331
0.029 1,387.706 3,509.713 15,258.271
0.029
12.264
63.494
161.412
0.012
2.760
14.524
27.108
1.068
33.164 188.816
329.263
0.050
41.057
146.193
396.408
0.036
61.492
391.567
831.342
0.138
147.832 2,586.631
5,464.297
0.288
996.028 6,294.280 11,620.614
0.108
171.040
374.918 12,520.509
0.084
61.172
335.898
1,187.909
0.002
2.502
87.106
175.134
1.886
855.089 1,046.361
6,429.566
0.001
0.545
1.705
4.282
0.035
278.865
183.279
278.524
0.027
303.949
345.302
1,393.721
0.040
36.376
304.797
638.377
(continued)
118
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machinery
Construction
communication
Other services
Total
Phenol
3.692
2.422
0.433
18.362
0.805
0.285
2.613
17.941
3.642
1.151
Zinc
Others
BOD
COD
0.033
18.202
94.896
157.741
0.122
6.408
41.625
81.110
0.006
5.524
13.986
24.994
0.030
22.276 301.124
185.287
0.016
28.443
19.527
28.454
0.002
4.282
15.666
48.666
0.014
5.107
36.866
42.860
0.166
94.523
617.054
1,302.306
0.020
11.835
80.074
103.100
5.886
12.089
30.677
63.702
3.514 0.043
39.418 0.341
50.439 1.672
21.464 0.397
76.610 0.114
86.624 36.793
4.170 0.120
35.058 1.140
11.736
47.052
168.027
74.494
21.277
695.455
15.847
244.314
43.597
289.563
717.995
342.985
332.446
3,139.146
71.134
1,285.976
87.700
386.364
1,216.453
635.968
249.941
6,747.374
136.267
2,247.668
57.004 1.826 1,009.239 5,255.777 10,385.753

426.920 39.072 14,292.237 81,668.440 174,803.129
Chapter 6
Estimation of Water Pollution Content

in Indias Foreign Trade
6.1
Trade and Environment
The dialogue on growth and the environment is closely related to the discussion of
trade liberalization and the environment particularly due to the large body of
evidence associating trade liberalization with increased growth. The WTO in a
report has analyzed the much debated relationship between trade and environment
(Nordstrom and Vaughan 1999).
The ongoing Doha Development Round of the GATT is seen by many as a
potential vehicle for real gains for all economies, particularly for the developing
economies, in the areas of agricultural reform, improved market access for goods
and services, and improvement of trade relations (World Bank 2007). Over the past
two decades, trade has been expanding at almost twice the rate of total global
economic activity. Integration into the world economy has been a tool for countries
to promote economic growth. Trade liberalization consists of policies aimed at
opening up the economy to foreign investment and lowering trade barriers in the
form of tariff reduction. International trade is becoming an increasingly important
driver of economic development.
At the same time, however, most of the worlds environmental indicators have
been steadily deteriorating, and the global achievement of such important objectives as the Millennium Development Goals remains very much a distant dream. It
is well known that trade liberalization leads to environmental degradation either as
a result of the relocation of polluting industries from countries with strict environmental laws or due to increased production in existing polluting industries. Increasing economic openness has, thus, led to concerns about the detrimental effects on
the environment (Mukhopadhyay 2007). The WTO recognizes that trade and
growth do not lead naturally to a more efficient use of natural resources (including
energy) and to a better quality of the environment. On the contrary, it recognizes

119
120
Estimation of Water Pollution Content in Indias Foreign Trade
that foreign trade might accelerate natural resources depletion and environmental
degradation in some cases.
The tradeenvironment links, however, are complex and depend on many
factors. Trade can be a powerful and positive instrument of growth and development when adequate environmental and macroeconomic policies are taken into
consideration. The relationship between trade expansion and environmental protection has been characterized by two extreme viewpoints promoting trade
worsens environmental conditions and higher environmental standards impose an
economic cost (Jaffe et al. 1995).
The interrelationship between trade and the environment has become a pressing
concern across the globe. Its nature varies from country to country, sector to sector,
and firm to firm. There are both threats and opportunities in this relationship for
countries, local communities, and firms pursuing economic development and environmental protection. How changing trade regimes affect the environment and how
stricter environmental regulations impact trade are a serious concern to economists,
environmentalists, policy makers, and world bodies like the World Trade Organization (WCED 1987).
Two conflicting hypotheses have emerged from the debate. The first one is the
pollution haven hypothesis (PHH). This hypothesis suggests that developed countries impose tougher environmental policies than developing countries, which
results in the distortion of existing patterns of comparative advantage. So the
polluting industries shift operations from the developed to the developing countries
which are seen as pollution havens. The second hypothesis, the factor endowment
hypothesis (FEH), states that trade liberalization will result in trade patterns consistent with the HeckscherOhlinVanek (HOV) theory of comparative advantage
based on factor endowment differentials. Rich countries are typically well endowed
with capital. Since capital-intensive goods are often also pollution intensive, factor
endowment theories of international trade predict that rich countries specialize in
polluting goods. Thus, the manifestation of the PHH is in direct conflict with the
FEH (Mukhopadhyay 2006a, 2007).
Theoretical and empirical assessment on the PHH and FEH was attempted by
many (Low and Yeats 1992; Mani and Wheeler 1999; Cole and Elliot 2001; Liddle
2001; Xing and Kolstad 2002; Copeland and Taylor 2003; Eskeland and Harrison
2003; Kuik and Gerlagh 2003; Busse 2004; Mulatu et al. 2004; Smarzynska and
Wei 2004; Waldkirch and Gopinath 2004; Dagoumas et al. 2006).
Among numerous research on the issue of trade and the environment Lucas
et al. (1992), Birdsall and Wheeler (1993) have performed statistical tests on the
relationship between the degree of trade openness, growth, and environmental
quality. Lucas et al. show that fast-growing closed economies became significantly
more pollution intensive in the 1970s and 1980s, whereas the opposite was true for
more open economies. Fast-growing open economies experienced mainly pollution
6.1 Trade and Environment
121
neutral structural change in the 1970s and a significant shift towards a less
pollution-intensive structure in the 1980s. Birdsall and Wheeler present similar
evidence on the above but with reference solely to Latin America. They also find
similar trends to the global developing country data, where pollution-intensive
industries have tended to locate in the less open economies. Wheeler and Martin
(1992) show that in the pulp and paper industry, the more open the economy, the
faster the cleaner technologies are adopted and diffused. They also show that a
countrys level of development has no independent effect on the adoption of clean
technologies in industries. Copeland and Taylor (2003) in their exhaustive study set
out the two leading theories (pollution haven hypothesis and factor endowment
hypothesis) linking international trade to environmental outcomes. They developed
the empirical implications and examined their validity using data on measured
sulfur dioxide concentrations from over 100 cities worldwide during the period of
19711986. The empirical results are provocative. For an average country in the
sample, free trade is good for the environment. There is little evidence that
developing countries will specialize in pollution-intensive products with further
trade. In fact, the results suggest just the opposite: free trade will shift pollutionintensive goods production from poor countries with lax regulation to rich countries
with tight regulation, thereby lowering world pollution. The results also suggest
that pollution declines amid economic growth fueled by economy-wide technological progress but rises when growth is driven by capital accumulation alone.
Several attempts have been made on trade environment issues by considering the
inputoutput model (Wyckoff and Roop 1994; Gale and Lewis 1995; Antweiler
1996; Proops et al. 1999; Machado et al. 2001; Munksgaard and Pedersen 2001;
Hayami and Nakamura 2002; Wadeskog 2002). But only a few have addressed the
PHH and FEH using the IO model (Mukhopadhyay and Chakraborty 2005a, 2006;
Dietzenbacher and Mukhopadhyay 2007; Mukhopadhyay 2006a, b, 2007).
The abovementioned literatures cover both theoretical works, identifying a
series of hypotheses linking openness to trade and environmental quality, and
empirical work, trying to disentangle some of the suggested linkages using crosscountry or within-country data. The review of the literature suggests that the
empirical evidence is still far from clear (Copeland and Taylor 2004). The methodologies employed to test the hypotheses vary widely and so do the results.
There are large number of literatures on the PHH, and FEH focusing on air
pollution but very few researches dealt with water pollution indicators to test these
hypotheses. Here we mention a couple of them. Ferraz and Young (1999) estimate
the effect of trade liberalization on the industrial structure and pattern of pollution
emissions in Brazil. An inputoutput approach is used to estimate the value of
production and potential pollution intensity. They found that the aggregate intensity
of pollutant emission has decreased for the whole industrial sector, but for the
export sector, the pollution intensity has been increasing after trade liberalization
for air parameters as well as water BOD, TSS, and metal. Kuhn and Bernanuer
122
(2006) develop three hypotheses and test them for transboundary water pollution
for international water management: (1) the intensity of bilateral trade ties has a
positive effect on international environmental problem solving, (2) asymmetry of
trade ties in favor of the downstream country is conducive to problem solving in
upstreamdownstream settings, and (3) neither trade intensity nor asymmetry has
an effect on reduction in water pollution. The dependent variable is transboundary
water quality, specifically concentrations of water pollutants from point- (BOD5)
and non-point sources (NO3). They found that the third hypothesis receives robust
empirical support: trade ties do not seem to help in reducing transboundary water
pollution, nor do they seem to hinder such efforts. Levinson (2009) analyzes this
topic in a different dimension. It shows that most of the decline in pollution from
US manufacturing has been the result of changing technology instead of changes in
the mix of goods produced, although the pace of that technology change has slowed
over time. Second, the evidence shows that increases in net imports of pollutionintensive goods are too small to explain more than about half of the pollution
reductions from the changing mix of goods produced in the United States. Together,
these two findings demonstrate that shifting polluting industries overseas has
played a minor role in the cleanup of the US manufacturing sector. In a recent
paper, Dean and Lovely (2010) calculate the pollution content of Chinas export
and import bundles from 1995 to 2005. The calculations rely on official Chinese
measurements of direct emissions of four pollutants for about 30 Chinese industries. They found that as Chinas trade has grown, the pollution intensity of almost
all sectors has fallen in terms of water pollution (measured by COD) and air
pollution (measured by SO2, smoke, or dust) in 2004. This finding suggests that
China has benefited from a positive technique effect, as emissions per real yuan
of output have fallen across a wide range of industries. The study also reveals that
Chinas major exporting industries are not highly polluting, and that the export
bundle is shifting towards relatively cleaner sectors over time. In 1995, textiles and
apparel accounted for the largest shares of Chinese exports to the world, but these
shares fell by about a third over the following decade. Office and computing
machinery and communications equipment, in contrast, were the fastest-growing
exports and accounted for the largest export share in 2005. Cole and Elliott (2003)
confirm that there is a significant positive correlation between capital intensity of
production and pollution intensity for many pollutants including water. Hence, they
expected that increases in capital abundance would lead to increasing pollution
intensity in manufacturing and in exports. Bruneau (2008) constructs Antweilers
(1996) pollution terms of trade (PTT). If the PTT is greater than one, then a
countrys exports are, on average, dirtier than its imports. The study used a panel
regression for 57 countries looking at the pattern of pollution intensities in exports,
imports, and their PTT for both air and water pollution parameters. Results support
the FEH but offer little support for the PHH.
Though several studies have been conducted on the issue of trade and environment in India primarily focusing on air pollution (Mukhopadhyay and Chakraborty
2005a, b), to the best of the authors knowledge there is hardly any research linking
trade and water pollution in India. Our study has made an effort in that direction.
6.2 Trend and Pattern of Foreign Trade in India
123
In this chapter we are trying to investigate the PHH and FEH hypothesis using
several water pollutants.
In the next section, we are presenting the trend and pattern of foreign trade in
India.
6.2
Trend and Pattern of Foreign Trade in India
The hidden trade liberalization in India has started in the 1980s, and its full effect
emerged during the 1990s. The Government of India had introduced liberalized
trade policy in the year 1991. Faced with rising inflation (13.6 %) and a Balance of
Payments crisis in mid-1991, the Government of India introduced a fairly comprehensive package comprising trade and exchange liberalization, reduction of tax
rates, industrial de-licensing, deregulation, currency devaluation, and privatization
of the public sector (Mukhopadhyay 2002).
India, being a South Asian developing country, normally exports agricultural
commodities and imports industrial manufactures. But the composition of exported
and imported commodities has changed after liberalized EXIM (exportimport)
policy. The growth rate has been much higher for both exports and imports after
liberalization.
During the 9th and 10th Five-Year Plans, the Government of India has revised its
export and import policy (GOI 2002). As a result, the shares of a few exported
commodities are escalating especially those which are energy intensive, and on the
other hand imported commodities are also rising. Indias exports are also moving
away from resource- to technology-based products in the post-liberalization period.
Based on this strategic policy shift, India aims to have at least 1 % share in total
global exports. Foreign trade in India is also steadily assuming a more significant
role in the countrys gross domestic product (GDP).
With the adoption of more liberal trade policies by India, commodity trade has
grown tremendously. In 1998, Indias total commodity trade was only US$99.85
billion with US$46.42 billion of exports and US$53.43 billion of imports, resulting
in a slight trade deficit of US$7.0 billion. By 2011, export has grown to US$447.32
billion, imports to US$568.10 billion with trade deficit at its highest at US$120.78
billion. This trade deficit amounted to 6.45 % of GDP approximately. An alarming
trend observed in Fig. 6.1 showed that in the last few years, imports have grown at a
much faster rate than exports.
In 2011, the top trading partner of India was the United Arab Emirates with US
$72.8 billion of trade, followed closely by China with US$72.2 billion. The United
States completes the top three trading partner of India. China has risen steadily in
the past few years to become an important trading partner for India. This is driven
by the significant increase of imports from China to India that increased from just
US$1.8 billion (3.6 % of total imports) in 2001 to US$55.5 billion (12.0 % of total
imports) in 2011 (Table 6.1).
124
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
-100
-200
Exports of goods and services (current US$)

Imports of goods and services (current US$)
Trade balance
Fig. 6.1 Indias commodity trade pattern (Source: WDI 2012)
Table 6.1 Indias top five trading partners 2011 (billion US$)
Country
1
United Arab Emirates
2
China
3
United States
4
Saudi Arabia
5
Switzerland
Total Trade
Source: UN Comtrade
Export
37.4
16.7
32.9
5.1
1.0
301.5
% of total
export
12.4
5.5
10.9
1.7
0.3
100.0
Import
35.5
55.5
22.6
28.4
31.4
462.4
% of total
import
7.7
12.0
4.9
6.1
6.8
100.0
Trade
balance
1.9
38.8
10.3
23.3
30.3
160.9
Total
trade
72.8
72.2
55.5
33.6
32.4
763.9
The composition of Indias commodity import did not change much over the
past decade. In 2011, the top commodity import was mineral fuels, oils, and
distillation product valued at US$ 157.4 billion followed by pearls, precious stones,
metals, and coins at US$93.6 billion. These two sectors represented 54.2 % of total
commodity imports into the country in 2011. The composition of Indias commodity export however has undergone some transformation over the years. Indias main
exports are engineering goods (19 percent of total exports), gems and jewelry (15
percent), chemicals (13 percent), agricultural products (9 percent) and textile
products (9 percent). India is also one of Asias largest refined product exporters
with petroleum accounting for around 18 percent of total exports (UN Comtrade).
6.3 Methodology
125
Not to be left behind, Indias commercial service trade has also seen a rapid
growth in recent years. Commercial service exports increased from US$11.1 billion
in 1998 to US$ 123.3 billion in 2010, while import grew from US$14.2 billion to
US$116.1 billion over the same period. The majority of Indias service export was
in the form of computer and communication services that made up 71.5 % of
services exports in 2010. This share has increased significantly since 1998. These
changes reflected the rapid development and the growing importance of the information technology industry in India and its focus on the outsourcing services (WDI
2012).
With economic reform and ambitious export policies, the Indian economy is
now expanding and diversifying its exports. These changes in trade pattern have
important implications for the environment and the use of water resources in the
economy. This may have some implications on generation of water pollution. This
work aims at contributing to this consequential issue. This is the focus of this
chapter which measures the water pollution content in trade.
6.3
Methodology
In this section, the methods for investigating pollution haven hypothesis and factor
endowment hypothesis are discussed.
6.3.1
Pollution Haven Hypothesis
To examine the relevance of the pollution haven effect, we have to estimate the
total water pollution contents in exported and imported commodities. To compute
that, we simply multiply the water pollution intensities with export and import
vector. But for deriving sectoral contribution we, constructed n n matrices of
export and import.
Reiterating Eq. (3.4) from Chap. 3
R W I A1
0
Cexp R P
3:4
6:1
Equation (6.1) measures the pollution content in exported commodities. P is a

n n matrix of export.
0
Cimp R M
6:2
Equation (6.2) derives the pollution content in imported commodities. M is a

n n matrix of import.
126
Here we assume identical technology (based on HeckscherOhlin theory) to find

out the water pollution content of imports of India from the rest of the world.
Thus, a measure of relative pollution content of trade, that is, pollution terms of
trade (PTOT), is given in Eq. (6.3):
PTOT
Cexp
Cimp
6:3
This measure is the ratio of the water pollution content of 1 lakh rupees of
exports relative to the pollution content of 1 lakh rupees of imports. A country gains
environmentally from trade in relative terms whenever its imported goods have
higher pollution content than its exported goods.
When the pollution terms of trade are greater (smaller) than 1, then a particular
countrys exports contain more (less) pollution than it is receiving through imports
(Mukhopadhyay and Chakraborty 2005a, b; Mukhopadhyay 2007).
6.3.2
Factor Endowment Hypothesis
We now develop a framework to deal with the factor endowment hypothesis. Here
two models based on Leontief (1953) and Leamer (1980) are used.
6.3.2.1
Leontief Framework
Heckscher (1919) and Ohlin (1933) made a major contribution to the theory of
international trade by focusing on the relationships between the composition of a
countrys factor endowments and its commodity trade patterns. The Heckscher
Ohlin theorem states that countries export those commodities which require, for
their production, relatively intensive use of those productive factors which are
found locally in relative abundance. The pioneering and elaborate effort of testing
empirically the validity of this theorem was first attempted by Leontief (1953). In
his attempt to see if trade pattern of a country really corroborates the Heckscher
Ohlin conclusion, Leontief applied the tools of the inputoutput technique and
tested the factor intensities of the average export and competitive import of the
United States.
We now define
G LI A1
6:4
This is a (1 N ) vector. An element of G gives the direct and indirect requirement of labor per unit of output. L indicates sectoral labor coefficients.
6.3 Methodology
127
Multiplying G with E and M, we obtain the total labor embodied in one million
dollar worth of export (lE) and labor embodied in one million dollar of import
replacements (lM), respectively:
lE LI A1 E GE
6:5
lM LI A1 M GM
6:6
H K I A1
6:7
and
Likewise we define
This is a (1 N ) vector. H refers the direct and indirect requirement of capital

per unit of output.
K indicates sectoral capital coefficients.
And then multiplying K by E and M, respectively, the capital embodied in one
million dollar worth of export (kE) and one million dollar worth of import replacement (kM) is obtained.
Finally, to verify the HeckscherOhlin predictions regarding the pattern of trade
for the country in question, a comparison between the capitallabor ratio for exports
(kE/lE) and the capitallabor ratio for import replacements (kM/lM) is required to
be done. One million dollar worth of export will be more or less capital intensive
than one million dollar worth of import replacements:
kE=lE
>1
kM=lM
6:8
kE=lE
<1
kM=lM
6:9
or
By conventional wisdom, the United States has more capital per worker than any
of the countries with which it trades. Hence, if HeckscherOhlin theorem holds,
then the United States should export commodities requiring more capital and
import commodities which use, when domestically produced, relatively more
labor. But this empirical research by Leontief led to the revolutionary finding that
the United States apparently exported labor-intensive goods and imported capitalintensive commodities. This finding has been referred to in the literature as Leontief
Paradox. In this pioneering research, Leontief (1953) used an inputoutput table for
the United States based on 1947 data and considered two factors of production
labor and capital.
128
6.3.2.2
Leamer Framework
Leamer (1980) used an alternative theoretical framework and showed that Leontief
applied a conceptually inappropriate test of the HeckscherOhlin hypothesis when
he applied it on the US data for 1947. He proposed a new set of indices for factor
abundance and reexamined the same data, and the so-called paradox arrived at by
Leontief was found to disappear.
Thus, a country whose trade figures reveal that it is more abundantly endowed
with capital rather than labor has to satisfy any of following three conditions as
developed by Leamer (1980):
1. KT > 0 and LT < 0
2. KT > 0 and LT > 0, then KT/Ki > LT/Li
3. KT < 0 and LT < 0, then KT/Ki < LT/Li
KT and LT indicate capital and labor content of trade, respectively. Ki and Li
refer to the capital and labor endowment of country, respectively.
Leamer implies that capital is abundant relative to labor in the United States. His
argument was that the lower capital per worker as was found to be embodied in
exports relative to imports in the case of the United States implied that a country
was abundant in labor and scarce in capital (as proposed by Leontief), if and only if
the country was found to be net exporter of labor services and net importer of
capital services. Leamer used the same set of data for 1947 for the US economy as
done by Leontief and found that the United States was a net exporter of both capital
and labor services in that year. Based on this, he contended that Leontiefs result
was based on a false proposition. He further showed that under these circumstances,
if a country is capital abundant, its net exports must be more capital intensive than
its consumption. The 1947 data on net export for the United States was found to be
more capital intensive than the US consumption, and on the basis of this Leamer
confirmed that the United States was relatively well endowed with capital than
labor in that year. Thus, the so-called Leontief Paradox ceased to exist.
6.4
Analysis of the Results
This section will discuss the results on pollution haven and factor endowment
hypotheses derived from the methodology explained above on India for the year
20062007.
6.4 Analysis of the Results
6.4.1
129
Pollution Haven Hypothesis
Here we estimated the water pollution content-suspended solids, dissolved solids,

chloride, sulfide, oil and grease, phenol, zinc, BOD, COD, etc., in export and import
commodities.
The pollution content of sectoral export and imports for different pollution
parameters for the year 20062007 is given in Appendices 6.A.1 and 6.A.2.
However, to focus on the pollution haven hypothesis, we need to compute the
pollution terms of trade (PTOT) for all 10 water pollution parameters. This is shown
in Table 6.2. It shows that the values of PTOT of 6 parameters out of 10 are greater
than 1. These are dissolved solids, chloride, sulfide, BOD, COD, etc. The values
reflect that export activities generate more pollution than imports in 20062007 for
Indias trade with the rest of the world. There are a number of reasons behind this
high water pollution content in export than import.
The PTOT depends on two factors which are the composition of exports and
imports and the pollution coefficient across 10 water pollutant parameters. In some
cases, a particular sector may give a high coefficient while the volume of exports
and imports matters when the coefficient value is low. For example in the case of
SS, the composition of exports and imports indicates that heavy manufacturing like
petroleum and coal tar products, iron and steel, and all kinds of machineries have
more share in import compared to export thus having SS content in large volume.
On the other hand, the agri-food and light manufacturing are dominant in the export
basket generating less SS. As a result, the SS content in imports is significantly
large than exports leading to the value of PTOT less than 1.
For DS it was found that cotton and miscellaneous textile sectors are major
players in the emission of DS. These two sectors made up a large share in the export
basket compared to import (Table 6.3). Therefore, the total volume of DS in export
is higher than imports, resulting in the value of PTOT greater than 1. Similar type of
explanation can be offered in case of BOD and COD. In these two cases, light
manufacturing and agriculture and agri-food commodities play an important role.
In addition to high volume of export, high pollution coefficients do matter.
Overall, we found that the pollution coefficient for SS is high particularly for
heavy manufacturing sector compared to other water pollutants. On the other
hand, the pollution coefficients of DS, BOD, and COD are high for light
manufacturing and agriculture and agri-food commodities as evident in Table 4.2.
6.4.2
Factor Endowment Hypothesis
The factor endowment hypothesis says that labor-intensive country will export
more labor-intensive goods and import capital-intensive goods. Being a labor-rich
country, this is highly expected for the Indian economy. According to trade and
environment debate, if a country exports pollution-intensive goods, it is expected to
130
Table 6.2 Pollution terms of

trade for ten water pollutants
Export
(thousand tons)
SS
39,071.07
DS
19,960.53
Chloride
1,138.563
Sulfide
457.6689
Oil and grease
669.4566
Phenol
554.2103
Zinc
5.689044
Others
1,865.63
BOD
9,041.72
COD
20,227.36
Import
(thousand tons)
50,908.87
5,497.358
474.8644
187.0555
775.2781
849.4298
11.75948
1,288.748
7,814.352
10,932.6
PTOT
0.76
3.63
2.39
2.44
0.86
0.65
0.48
1.44
1.15
1.85
export capital-intensive goods. It is generally thought that labor-intensive good is

relatively cleaner than that of capital-intensive good. As a developing country India
is endowed with an abundant supply of labor and has a scarcity of capital. Therefore, according to the HO theory, labor should be the most important source of
Indias comparative advantage. Let us see now what Indias trade structure reveals
regarding Indias sources of comparative advantage using the Leontief and Leamer
approaches for the year 20062007.
Table 6.4 shows the result based on the Leontief method. Considering the two
factors of production labor and capital, it can be observed that labor requirements
are relatively greater in Indias exports to the rest of the world while capital
requirements are relatively greater in import replacements. In other words, the
capital intensity of exports relative to labor (kE/lE) is lower than that of import
replacements (kM/lM) and thereby the ratio [(kE/lE)/(kM/lM)] remains less than unity
(0.6462) for 20062007. This implies that Indias exports are relatively less capital
intensive than its import replacements. So, Indias trade structure for 20062007
reveals India to be a relatively labor-abundant country.
Indias export basket for 20062007 is still relatively tilted towards laborintensive goods, whereas capital-intensive goods (including mining) dominate the
import basket despite the fact that capital intensity of Indias export has been
steadily rising in the post-1991 period. In Indias export basket, capital-intensive
goods that include mining and querying; petroleum and coal tar products; inorganic,
organic, and other chemicals; fertilizer; iron and steel; other machineries; machinery and metal products; electrical machinery; and transport equipment have
accounted for 46 % (approximately) of total exports, whereas the import share of
this group of sectors is 80 % (approximately). Due to this nature of commodity
compositions of export and import baskets, the HO theory seems to be valid for
Indias trade with the ROW.
Table 6.5 shows the result based on Leamer approach.
In 20062007, Indias export to the ROW is 9,150,642.2 million rupees, whereas
its import from this partner is worth of 10,656,950.3 million rupees, resulting in a
deficit of 1,506,308.1 million rupees. Labor embodied in these total volume exports
6.4 Analysis of the Results
131
Table 6.3 Sectoral export and import share in India for the year 20062007 (%)
1
Agriculture
2
Other agriculture
3
4
Livestock
5
Fishing
6
Coal and lignite
7
8
Sugar
9
Oil and vanaspati
10
11
Food products
12
Cotton textile
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Rubber products
20
Plastic products
21
22
23
24
Fertilizers
25
Pesticides
26
27
Other chemicals
28
29
30
Iron and steel
31
32
33
Transport equipment
34
Other machineries
35
Construction
36
37
38
Other services
Export share
2.029
0.383
0.001
0.306
0.712
0.018
5.476
0.204
0.621
0.300
1.585
1.308
0.755
0.039
6.225
0.149
0.275
0.775
0.759
0.554
3.022
0.345
2.312
0.003
0.257
0.107
1.604
0.854
0.519
2.926
4.765
4.807
2.843
18.349
0.000
0.000
5.940
28.873
Import share
0.809
0.853
0.000
0.033
0.014
0.993
22.137
0.622
1.181
0.056
0.658
0.197
0.529
0.029
0.320
0.094
1.010
0.157
0.235
0.395
3.377
1.359
2.700
0.350
0.164
0.251
1.665
1.338
1.627
3.124
12.495
6.136
3.051
24.196
0.000
0.000
0.721
7.120
and import replacements are 923.1 and 889.5 million man-years, respectively.
Since the labor embodied in net exports (LE) exceeds that in import replacements
(LM), India was a net exporter of labor services (LT LE LM > 0) of 33.6 million
man-years. The capital embodied in Indias total import replacements
(18,959,028.0 million rupees) is greater than that embodied in Indias total exports
132
Table 6.4 Factors embodied

in one million dollars worth of
export and import
replacements in Indias trade
with the ROW 20062007
(using Leontief method)
Table 6.5 Factor content and

trade revealed factor
abundance in Indias trade
with the ROW 20062007
(using Leamer approach)
20062007
1. Labor
[A] Exports (lE)
[B] Imports (lM)
2. Capital
[A] Exports (kE)
[B] Imports (kM)
3. Capital/labor
[A] Exports (kE/lE)
[B] Imports (kM/lM)
[C] Exports/imports [(kE/lE)/(kM/lM)]
Trade revealed factor abundance
Labor in man-years, capital in million Rs.
1. Labor
[A] Exports
[B] Imports
[C] Net trade (LT)
2. Capital
[A] Exports
[B] Imports
[C] Net trade (KT)
Trade revealed factor abundance
Labor in million man-years, capital in
million rupees
100.9
83.5
1,389,473.8
1,779,029.4
13,773.3
21,313.2
0.6462
L>K
923.1
889.5
33.6
12,714,577.2
18,959,028.0
6,244,450.8
L>K
to the ROW (12,714,577.2 million rupees), implying the country is net importer of
capital services (KT kE kM < 0) worth of 6,244,450.8 million rupees. Therefore,
according to Leamer criteria, India is a labor-abundant country.
Thus the result based on both Leontief and Leamer approaches do support the
HeckscherOhlin theorem for India for the year 20062007, implying that India
exports labor-intensive goods and imports capital-intensive goods.
6.5
Implication of the Findings on Trade and Environment

Debate
Results from Table 6.2 reveal that the pollution terms of trade is greater than one for
a number of water pollution parameters. Further, analysis of the export and import
shares indicates that the share of export is larger for agriculture, agri-food commodities, and light manufacturing compared to that of imports. Among these
6.5 Implication of the Findings on Trade and Environment Debate
133
sectors, the most water pollution intensives are textilescotton and miscellaneous,
food products, livestock, milk and milk products, tea and beverages, leather and
leather products, and rubber and rubber products.
The results above show that India exports more water pollution-intensive goods
while importing less (except SS, oil, grease, phenol, and zinc). Therefore, India is a
pollution heaven for those water pollution parameters for the year 20062007
(BOD, COD, DS, chloride, sulfide, and others). On the contrary, the result of the
Leontief and Leamer approaches for factor endowment reveals that India is
exporting labor-intensive goods and importing capital-intensive goods.
The current exercise reveals somewhat different results from the trade and
environment debate discussed earlier. India, being a labor-rich country, is expected
to export more labor-intensive good and import more capital-intensive good. In
addition, if a country exports pollution-intensive goods, it is expected to export
capital-intensive goods which are dirtier than labor-intensive goods. Yet, being a
labor-rich country, India exports both labor-intensive and pollution-intensive
goods. In our previous study on air pollution parameters for India, we found that
India exports clean goods and imports pollution-intensive goods with respect to air
pollution, suggesting that India is not a pollution haven for CO2, SO2, and NOx
(Mukhopadhyay 2006a; Mukhopadhyay and Chakraborty 2005a). On the other
hand, the study on India and the rest of the world (ROW) supports factor endowment hypothesis as India exports labor-intensive goods and imports capitalintensive ones.
Despite these results, there has been another interesting evidence for an emerging economy in Asia. Thailand exports dirty goods and imports clean goods, and
this finding seems to support or at least not contradict the pollution haven hypothesis for Thailand in the year 2000 (Mukhopadhyay 2006a, 2007). The study also
further investigated the role of factor endowments in determining Thailands trade
with the OECD for the same period. Estimates of capital and labor requirements to
produce exports and imports show that Thailands exports required more capital
(more capital per worker) than imports in 2000. More specifically, Thailands
imports are 5 % less capital intensive than its exports. The study on the whole
supported the pollution haven hypothesis in 2000 by rejecting the factor endowment hypothesis (Mukhopadhyay 2006a, 2007).
These findings of water pollution content in Indias trade with the rest of the
world have thrown further insights on the ongoing trade and environment debate.
134
Appendices
Appendix 6.A.1: Water Pollution Generated from Exported
Commodities (Thousand Tons)
Oil/
Export
SS
DS
Chloride
Sulfide
grease
Phenol
Agriculture
1,477.00
18.5876
4.9452
2.1236 65.7047
0.6037
Other agriculture
48.6206
3.3383
0.5707
0.1014
1.0386
0.0803
Milk and milk
0.1737
0.1782
0.0162
0.0001
0.0466
0.0001
products
Livestock
119.071
19.0764
0.2415
0.1113
7.1404
0.0578
Fishing
57.4366
24.4523
10.6603
6.2239
2.0301
0.1386
Coal and lignite
7.6338
0.1442
0.0117
0.0067
0.0302
0.0117
1,484.04
162.329
4.6145
2.8069 21.4582
2.8310
Sugar
35.6575
8.9370
0.3495
0.1444
1.1784
0.0934
Oil and vanaspati
132.697
7.6392
1.0122
0.4180
6.4119
0.2393
Tea, coffee, and
106.994
136.635
1.3157
0.7160
1.7357
0.1928
beverages
Food products
723.866
52.9937
7.0993
2.5452 33.9437
0.7529
Cotton textile
1,723.37
9,548.99
7.3570
3.6765
5.1955
0.8847
Woolen and silk
552.670
324.463
80.7729 37.5314
8.6280
1.7771
textile
Jute, hemp, and mesta
46.8777
0.9478
38.1093 22.2695
0.4079
0.1062
textiles
3,878.98
7,735.87
561.392 296.461
31.4130
7.6383
products
Wood and wood
47.8769
3.7836
0.5712
0.2571
0.5241
0.1430
products
Paper and paper
204.078
7.1619
0.6162
0.3492
1.1762
0.2613
products
Leather and leather
409.771
256.962
225.794
2.7728
4.7028
0.5570
products
Rubber products
417.276
173.533
6.8730
4.1601
7.6754
1.2831
Plastic products
354.823
31.4155
2.1618
0.8725
5.2848
1.3955
Petroleum and coal tar 1,116.66
153.991
2.4695 12.2999 95.8515
2.4852
products
Inorganic heavy
270.490
56.2336
1.6788
0.7076
3.9706
0.8890
chemicals
Organic heavy
1,873.06
97.4126
12.7336
4.7383 125.4210 35.7504
chemicals
Fertilizers
1.9657
0.1480
0.0073
0.0056
0.0387
0.0053
Pesticides
168.927
9.3127
22.4679
0.5060
2.6902
0.6809
65.5404
4.6921
0.4699
0.2165
1.8570
0.6551
lacquers
(continued)
Appendices
Export
135
SS
DS
Chloride
Sulfide
Oil/
grease
Phenol
Other chemicals
804.128
104.881
7.2912
3.6997 15.3038
3.9090
423.955
39.9718
3.0734
1.6293 12.7845
3.1466
Other nonmetallic
523.198
12.3415
1.0710
0.7233
2.5477
0.3920
mineral products
Iron and steel
2,923.26
36.5467
23.9864
2.7573 10.1066
7.7895
Machinery and metal
3,041.41
73.6863
13.1568
4.2726 15.0592 22.981
products
2,844.92
91.4965
17.0354
6.0984 18.9905 10.807
Transport equipment
1,875.03
59.1626
10.5718
2.7798
8.9045
5.2500
Other machineries
5,983.18
377.544
42.8865 16.7714 54.6050 424.08
Construction
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Electricity gas and
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
water supply
Transport services and 2,235.10
126.679
6.2131
7.0615 45.3704
5.5892
communication
Other services
3,091.27
198.975
18.9655
9.8539 50.2288 10.742
Total
39,071.0
19,960.5
1,138.56
457.668 669.4566 554.21
Export
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
textiles
products
Leather and leather
products
Rubber products
Plastic products
Petroleum and coal tar
products
Zinc
0.0264
0.0030
0.0000
0.0021
0.0057
0.0002
0.2884
0.0042
0.0061
0.0053
0.0299
0.0269
0.0176
0.0006
Others
304.7605
7.5031
0.1165
99.0675
2.4459
0.0417
8.9567
3.4424
10.2967
5.6796
103.4573
42.5568
12.7759
0.6262
BOD
2,277.0649
17.8791
0.7279
250.5564
12.6630
0.2195
50.9931
12.2575
65.5674
99.3769
653.7860
93.2840
70.1528
21.8044
COD
3,745.5211
71.8782
1.5612
1,089.2793
32.1910
0.4096
88.9236
33.2367
139.2072
209.9353
1,207.0314
3,115.2454
248.0967
43.8398
1.0514
476.7977
583.4509
3,585.1256
0.0023
0.0072
0.0126
1.6413
57.4171
142.7399
5.1376
37.7363
162.1598
12.9016
57.3468
654.5156
0.0177
0.0124
0.1247
15.9386
6.8800
6.5742
133.5511
35.8697
42.7055
279.7135
59.6244
83.2158
(continued)
136
Export
Fertilizers
Pesticides
lacquers
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Machinery and metal
products
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
supply
communication
Other services
Total
Zinc
0.0129
0.0577
0.0001
0.0057
0.0035
Others
11.3316
43.3720
0.1860
10.2178
1.2801
BOD
28.6898
586.2957
0.1277
37.3847
9.2412
COD
51.2714
360.7583
0.1860
116.1363
10.7435
0.0361
0.0173
2.0045
20.5953
10.2253
4.1169
134.4477
69.1821
10.4475
283.7549
89.0764
21.6942
0.0946
0.1987
26.0127
27.4316
96.6352
168.8182
194.3904
225.2544
0.3582
0.0972
0.6321
0.0000
0.0000
36.0039
18.2204
117.7828
0.0000
0.0000
153.8482
83.8903
1,840.3177
0.0000
0.0000
260.6551
155.5507
1,383.5956
0.0000
0.0000
0.1818
38.9511
205.0235
358.3462
0.3442
5.6890
190.1865
1,865.6297
990.4271
9,041.7203
1,957.1479
20,227.3611
Appendix 6.A.2: Water Pollution Generated from Imported

Commodities (Thousand Tons)
Import
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Tea, coffee, and
beverages
Food products
Cotton textile
SS
DS
686.146
126.018
0.0042
14.8394
1.3244
491.377
6,986.76
126.517
294.062
23.0846
349.705
303.132
8.6349
8.6523
0.0043
2.3774
0.5638
9.2789
764.233
31.7097
16.9289
29.4798
25.6017
1,679.61
Oil/
Chloride Sulfide
grease
Phenol
2.2973
0.9865 30.5233
0.2804
1.4791
0.2627
2.6918
0.2082
0.0004
0.0000
0.0011
0.0000
0.0301
0.0139
0.8899
0.0072
0.2458
0.1435
0.0468
0.0032
0.7557
0.4332
1.9471
0.7527
21.7247 13.2149 101.0239 13.3283
1.2399
0.5123
4.1813
0.3315
2.2430
0.9264 14.2091
0.5304
0.2839
0.1545
0.3745
0.0416
3.4297
1.2941
1.2296
0.6467
16.3985
0.3637
0.9139
0.1556
(continued)
Appendices
Import
137
SS
DS
Chloride Sulfide
Oil/
grease
Phenol

451.636
265.147
66.0068 30.6703
7.0507
1.4522
41.1021
0.8310 33.4140 19.5258
0.3577
0.0931
textiles
231.929
462.537
33.5663 17.7257
1.8782
0.4567
products
35.3969
2.7973
0.4223
0.1901
0.3875
0.1057
872.282
30.6116
2.6339
1.4925
5.0274
1.1171
Leather and leather
96.7711
60.6840 53.3234
0.6548
1.1106
0.1315
products
Rubber products
150.746
62.6911
2.4830
1.5029
2.7729
0.4635
Plastic products
294.708
26.0930
1.7956
0.7246
4.3894
1.1590
1,453.26
200.409
3.2139 16.0075 124.7442
3.2343
products
Inorganic heavy
1,241.14
258.027
7.7032
3.2467 18.2189
4.0790
chemicals
Organic heavy chemicals 2,547.39
132.482
17.3179
6.4442 170.5745 48.6211
Fertilizers
240.863
18.1329
0.8974
0.6904
4.7444
0.6449
Pesticides
125.685
6.9288 16.7165
0.3765
2.0016
0.5066
178.840
12.8035
1.2822
0.5907
5.0673
1.7875
lacquers
Other chemicals
971.957
126.770
8.8129
4.4719 18.4979
4.7249
773.943
72.9697
5.6107
2.9743 23.3385
5.7442
Other nonmetallic min1,909.43
45.0409
3.9088
2.6397
9.2980
1.4306
eral products
Iron and steel
3,634.43
45.4377 29.8217
3.4281 12.5654
9.6845
Machinery and metal
9,289.13
225.053
40.1835 13.0494 45.9941 70.1896
products
4,229.49
136.026
25.3262
9.0664 28.2328 16.0678
Transport equipment
2,343.39
73.9410 13.2126
3.4742 11.1287
6.5614
Other machineries
9,188.70
579.815
65.8632 25.7567 83.8599 651.296
Construction
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
supply
315.822
17.8999
0.8779
0.9978
6.4109
0.7898
communication
Other services
887.802
57.1450
5.4468
2.8300 14.4255
3.0851
Total
50,908.8
5,497.35
474.864 187.055 775.2781 849.429
Import
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Zinc
0.0123
0.0078
0.0000
0.0003
0.0001
0.0117
1.3580
0.0149
Others
141.5776
19.4471
0.0028
12.3464
0.0564
2.6841
42.1674
12.2142
BOD
1,057.8190
46.3402
0.0174
31.2258
0.2920
14.1267
240.0719
43.4913
COD
1,739.9958
186.2991
0.0374
135.7522
0.7423
26.3656
418.6460
117.9286
(continued)
138
Import
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
communication
Other services
Total
Zinc
0.0134
0.0011
0.0145
0.0047
0.0144
0.0005
0.0629
0.0017
0.0308
0.0030
0.0064
0.0103
0.1623
0.0592
0.0784
0.0125
0.0042
0.0097
0.0436
0.0317
7.3155
Others
22.8181
1.2254
49.9810
7.4855
10.4404
0.5491
28.5083
1.2135
245.4146
33.7092
5.7580
5.7144
8.5559
51.9951
58.9866
22.7860
7.6023
3.4929
24.8937
18.6666
15.0248
BOD
145.3005
21.4411
315.8489
16.4081
57.3281
19.1179
34.8852
3.7984
161.2941
38.2954
48.2470
29.7926
55.5782
131.6425
797.3712
15.6431
27.8149
25.2164
162.5081
126.2940
38.1288
COD
308.4895
45.2947
583.1259
547.9547
202.7420
38.4385
214.3588
9.5386
245.1141
154.5695
101.0501
49.5227
108.2996
235.2579
490.6369
22.7941
86.4076
29.3158
342.9770
162.6116
79.1742
0.1177
0.6068
0.5325
0.1214
0.9707
0.0000
0.0000
0.0257
32.3410
83.7818
53.5263
22.7717
180.8855
0.0000
0.0000
5.5038
120.1444
515.6065
228.7230
104.8455
2,826.2765
0.0000
0.0000
28.9700
241.6815
687.9746
387.5107
194.4062
2,124.8633
0.0000
0.0000
50.6346
0.0988
11.7595
54.6209
1,288.7482
284.4471
7,814.3521
562.0858
10,932.5972
References
Antweiler W (1996) The pollution terms of trade. Econ Syst Res 8(4):361365
Birdsall N, Wheeler D (1993) Trade policy and industrial pollution in Latin America: where are
the pollution havens? J Environ Dev 2(1):137149
Bruneau JF (2008) Pollution terms of trade and the composition of manufacturing. Working paper
series, Department of Economics, University of Saskatchewan. Retrieved from http://www.
parisschoolofeconomics.eu/IMG/pdf/bruneau.pdf
Busse M (2004) Trade, environmental regulations and the World Trade Organization: new
empirical evidence. Working paper 3361. World Bank Policy Research, Washington, DC
References
139
Cole MA, Elliot RJR (2001) Factor endowments or environmental regulations? Determining the
trade-environment composition effect. Department of Economics discussion paper, The University of Birmingham, 0106, pp 138
Cole MA, Elliott RJR (2003) Determining the tradeenvironment composition effect: the role of
capital, labor and environmental regulations. J Environ Econ Manage 46:363383
Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2003) Trade and the environment: theory and evidence. Princeton
University Press, Princeton
Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2004) Trade, growth and the environment. J Econ Lit 42(1):1128
Dagoumas AS, Papagiannis GK, Dokopoulos PS (2006) An economic assessment of the Kyoto
Protocol application. Energy Policy 34(1):2639
Dean JM, Lovely ME (2010) Trade growth, production fragmentation, and Chinas environment.
In: Feenstra R, Wei S (eds) Chinas growing role in world trade. NBER/University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, pp 419469
Dietzenbacher E, Mukhopadhyay K (2007) Testing the pollution haven hypothesis: towards a
green Leontief Paradox? Environ Resour Econ 36(4):427449
Eskeland GS, Harrison AE (2003) Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and pollution haven
hypothesis. J Dev Econ 70:123
Ferraz C, Young CEF (1999) Trade liberalization and industrial pollution in Brazil. Environment
and Development no. 23, Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean, United
Nations
Gale IV, Lewis R (1995) Trade liberalization and pollution: an input-output study of carbon
dioxide emissions in Mexico. Econ Syst Res 7(3):309320
GOI (2002) Tenth five year plan document 20022007. Government of India, Planning Commission, Yojana Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi
Hayami H, Nakamura M (2002) CO2 emission of alternative technologies and bilateral trade
between Japan and Canada: technology option and implication for joint implementation. Paper
presented at the 14th international conference on input-output techniques, Montreal, Canada
Heckscher EF (1919) The effect of foreign trade on the distribution of income. Economisk
Tidskrift. In: Heckscher EF, Ohlin B (eds) Heckscher-Ohlin trade theory. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1991 (translated, edited and introduced by Harry Flam and M. June Flanders)
Jaffe AB, Peterson SR, Portney PR, Stavins RN (1995) Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us? J Econ Lit 33:132163
Kuhn P, Bernauer T (2006) Does trade promote effective international environmental problem
solving? CIS working paper no. 13, University of Zurich. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/
abstract900486
Kuik O, Gerlagh R (2003) The effect of trade liberalization on carbon leakage under the Kyoto
Protocol. Energy J 24(3):97120
Leamer EE (1980) The Leontief Paradox reconsidered. J Polit Econ 88:495503
Leontief W (1953) Domestic production and foreign trade: the American position reexamined.
Proc Am Philos Soc 97(4):332342
Levinson A (2009) Technology, international trade, and pollution from US manufacturing. Am
Econ Rev 99(5):21772192
Liddle B (2001) Free trade and the environment-development system. Ecol Econ 39(1):2136
Low D, Yeats A (1992) Do dirty industries migrate, international trade and environment. World
Bank discussion paper 159, World Bank
Lucas REB, Wheeler D, Hettige H (1992) Economic development, environmental regulation and
the international migration of toxic industrial pollution: 196088. In: Low P (ed) International
trade and the environment. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 6786
Machado G, Schaeffer R, Worrell E (2001) Energy and carbon embodied in the international trade
of Brazil: an input-output approach. Ecol Econ 39(3):409424
Mani M, Wheeler D (1999) In search of pollution havens? Dirty industry in the world economy,
19601995. Document presented to the OECD conference on FDI and the Environment, The
Hague
140
Mukhopadhyay K (2002) Energy consumption changes and CO2 emissions in India. Allied
Publishers Pvt. Limited, New Delhi
Mukhopadhyay K (2006a) Impact of Thailands trade with OECD countries on the environment.
Asia Pac Trade Invest Rev 2(1):2545
Mukhopadhyay K (2006b) Trade liberalization and the environment: evidence from India. In
Proceedings of end-phase symposium on Indo-Dutch Programme on Alternatives in Development (IDPAD) on Indias development: even or uneven? Reflections on development theory
and practice. ICSSR/ISS, New Delhi/The Hague.
Mukhopadhyay K (2007) Trade and environment in Thailand: an emerging economy. Serials
Publication, New Delhi
Mukhopadhyay K, Chakraborty D (2005a) Is liberalization of trade good for the environment?
Evidence from India. Asia Pac Dev J 12(1):109136
Mukhopadhyay K, Chakraborty D (2005b) Environmental impacts of trade in India. Int Trade J 19
(2):135163
Mukhopadhyay K, Chakraborty D (2006) Pollution haven and factor endowment revisited:
evidence from India. J Quant Econ 18(1):111132
Mulatu A, Florax RJGM, Withagen C (2004) Environmental regulation and international trade:
empirical results for Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S., 19771992. BE J Econ Anal
Policy 3(2): Article 5, 130
Munksgaard J, Pedersen KA (2001) CO2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer
responsibility? Energy Policy 29(4):327335
Nordstrom H, Vaughan S (1999) Trade and environment. World Trade Organization, Geneva
Ohlin B (1933) Interregional and international trade. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Proops JL, Atkinson G, Schlotheim BFV, Simon S (1999) International trade and the sustainability
footprint: a practical criterion for its assessment. Ecol Econ 28:7597
Smarzynska BK, Wei SJ (2004) Pollution haven and foreign direct investment: dirty secret or
popular myth? BE J Econ Anal Policy 3(2): Article 8, 134
Wadeskog A (2002) Trade and the environment in Input-output based environmentally accounts
analysis. Paper presented at the 14th international conference on input-output techniques,
Montreal, Canada
Waldkirch A, Gopinath M (2004) Pollution haven or hythe? New evidence from Mexico. Working
paper, International trade EconWPA 0412005
WCED (1987) Our common future, World Commission on Environment and Development.
WDI (2012) World development indicators 2012. World Bank, Washington, DC
Wheeler D, Martin P (1992) Prices, policies, and the international diffusion of clean technology:
the case of wood pulp production. In Low P (ed) International trade and the environment,
Discussion paper no 159. World Bank, Washington, pp 197224
World Bank (2007) International trade and climate change- economic, legal, and institutional
perspectives- overview. World Bank, Washington, DC
Wyckoff AW, Roop JM (1994) The embodiment of carbon in imports of manufactured products:
implications for international agreements on greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy 22
(3):187194
Xing Y, Kolstad C (2002) Do lax environmental regulations attract foreign investment? Environ
Resour Econ 21(1):122
Chapter 7
Simulation Exercises on Water Pollution

Abatement Policies
7.1
Introduction
To control water pollution is not an isolated activity. It requires a comprehensive

action at all levels. Among the various methods employed to abate chemical
pollution of waterways, the ideal one is to minimize or avoid the use of chemicals
for industrial, agricultural, and domestic purposes. Adapting practices such as
organic farming and integrated pest management could help protect waterways
(Scheierling 1995), while chemical contamination of waterways from industrial
emissions could be reduced by cleaner production processes (UNEP 2002). Other
interventions include proper treatment of hazardous waste and the recycling of
chemical containers and discarded products containing chemicals to reduce solid
waste buildup and the leaching of toxic chemicals into waterways. There are
various technical solutions available to filter out chemical waste from industrial
processes or to make them harmless. Changing the pH of wastewater or adding
chemicals that flocculate the toxic chemicals so that they settle in sedimentation
ponds are common methods (Kinniburgh and Smedley 2001).
The costs and benefits associated with interventions to remove chemical contaminants from water need to be assessed on a local or national basis to determine
specific needs, available resources, environmental conditions (including climate),
and sustainability (Dasgupta et al. 1997; Zhang et al. 1996). The control of water
pollution is to reduce the pollution loads from anthropogenic activities to the
natural regenerative capacity of the resource. The benefits of the preservation of
water quality are numerous as abatement of water pollution generates both marketable and nonmarketable benefits. Marketable benefits include reduced water-borne
diseases, savings in the cost of supplying water for household, industrial and
agricultural uses, control of land degradation, and development of fisheries, while
nonmarketable benefits include improved environmental amenities, aquatic life,
and biodiversity (Murty and Kumar 2011).

141
142
7 Simulation Exercises on Water Pollution Abatement Policies
In Chap. 5, we have computed the effect of pollution control cost on output and
prices for the Indian economy for the year 20062007. What has been studied is to
estimate the impact of adding clean water sector on output and prices. Our focus in
this chapter is to analyze the impact of alternative water pollution abatement
policies on the Indian economy especially focusing on sectoral output and prices.
7.2
Interventions to Control Water Pollution in India
Environmental pollution is often viewed as a negative externality. These external

diseconomies of development activities can be minimized by controlling pollution,
where polluters or some other agents of the economy incur some additional costs.
However, since the environment is a public good, the particular agent will have no
incentive to incur the pollution abatement cost. The reason being, it is difficult to
define or enforce property rights to the services of such resources, making it
difficult to be priced. This justifies the governmental regulations and pollution
control policies (Chakraborty et al. 2001).
In India, there have been policy responses for the prevention and control of
environmental degradation since the 1970s. The Government of India issued a
policy statement for the abatement of pollution in February 1992. The policy
emphasizes that it is not enough for the government to notify laws which are to
be complied with. The policy affirms that the overall objective of the government is
to integrate environmental and economic aspects in the development planning at all
levels. It focuses on the preventive aspects for the pollution abatement and promotion of technological inputs to reduce industrial pollutants. The following specific
steps that have been suggested to meet this objective are to prevent pollution at
source; encourage, develop, and apply the best available practical technical solutions; ensure that the polluters pay for the pollution and control arrangements; focus
protection on heavily polluted areas and river stretches; involve public in decision
making; and increase safety of industrial operations.
The environmental policy in recent times has also recognized the importance of
the role of incentive-based policy instruments in controlling and preventing environmental pollution. Formal regulations may be classified into two categories:
(a) state intervention in the form of legislations and policies and (b) public investments for environmental cleaning activities, such as the Ganga Action Plan (GAP)
and the Yamuna Action Plan (Murty and Kumar 2011).
7.2.1
Laws for Controlling Water Pollution
Earlier, the government had a tendency of relying on direct regulation or the

command and control (CAC) type policies for controlling pollution. India is the
first country which had made provision for the protection and improvement of
7.2 Interventions to Control Water Pollution in India
143
environment in its constitution. In the 42nd amendment to the constitution in 1976,

provision to its effect was incorporated in the constitution of India with effect from
3 Jan 1977. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 amended in
1986; the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act 1977 amended in
1988; the Environment Protection Act (EPA) 1986 is the most important law,
relating to the industrial pollution abatement in India. Over the years, several
amendments have been made in the various existing statutes to meet the need of
the environmental issues.
The first two Acts (1974, 1977) are foundational legislations in the context of
water pollution in the country. The EPA is designed to fill the gaps still remaining in
the legal framework for the control of industrial pollution. The Water Cess Act aims
at generating more revenue rather than restricting the consumption of water by
industrial units. Central Pollution Control Board and the state boards are
empowered to prevent, control, and abate water pollution. These boards will also
advise governments regarding pollution matters. The main task of the CPCB is to
coordinate the activities of the state boards. These laws have mainly concerned with
controlling industrial water pollution. CPCB has also prepared a list of polluting
industries in India. According to these acts, the industries have to provide, on
demand, all information regarding their effluent and treatment methods. The regulation of water pollution originating from the household and agriculture sectors is
not under the purview of these laws.
We observed that the maximum penalty prescribed under The Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Cess Act 1977 was only one thousand, while the same
under The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 was 10,000
rupees. The maximum penalty under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 was
one lakh. However, in the case of water pollution, the fine or penalty prescribed
under The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 would be applicable as per sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the Environment Protection Act 1986.
Thus, the maximum penalty/fine is limited to 10,000 for case relating to water
pollution (CAG 2011).
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act maintains a balance of
strategies to ensure compliance, education and assistance, monitoring and inspections, communication, and outreach. However, it fails to address the vital aspect of
developing fair and differentiated responses to noncompliance. There is not much
evidence of the design of enforcement programs to deter illegal conduct by creating
negative consequences. Further the law does not address the issue of restoration of
the polluted water bodies. It also does not define stricter financial and nonfinancial
penalties to environmental offenders. Although the concerns related to water
pollution have been adequately addressed in National Water Policy and National
Environment policy in India, both at the central and the state level, provisions for
generation of resources for prevention of pollution, treatment of polluted water, and
ecological restoration of polluted water bodies are not adequate (CAG 2011).
144
7.2.2
Fiscal Instruments for Pollution Control
Command and control measures are mostly used by the government to prevent
pollution. Natural resource management, on the other hand, has been carried out
through programs supported by the central and state governments. The use of fiscal
instruments (other than the expenditure policy) in the environmental policy has
been limited, even though the need to employ economic and fiscal policy instruments for the control of pollution and management of natural resources has gained
recognition since the 1990s (Datt et al. 2004).
A task force was constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MoEF) in 1995 to evaluate the scope for market-based instruments (MBIs) for
industrial pollution abatement (GOI 1997). The task force recommended explicit
incorporation of MBIs in pollution control laws, greater reliance on economic
penalties in the short and medium term, and completely replacing criminal penalties
by MBIs in the long run. It also recommended modifying the existing water cess to
make it a genuine effluent based that considers pollution load rather than the
amount of water consumed. It also recommended abolishing tax concessions for
installation of pollution control equipment. The need for systematic data collection
to estimate marginal abatement costs and the regulatory burden was highlighted by
the task force. Further, it calls for the introduction of additional MBIs.
The actual use of fiscal incentives in the country has been rather limited. These
take the form of tax concessions for the adoption of pollution control equipment.
Tax incentives are usually specified for identified abatement technologies and
activities, not providing dynamic incentives for technological innovation and
diffusion. Also, since most of these are end of-the-pipe treatment technologies,
these incentives do not promote more efficient use of resources. There are some
provisions for the use of levies, cess, fines, penalties, etc., for polluters, but their
implementation and effectiveness need to be strengthened (Kumar and Managi
2009).
Although it is widely known that command and control measures do not provide
necessary incentives to polluters for the choice of least cost methods of pollution
control, the Government of India has so far resorted only to such measures for
controlling industrial pollution in India. On the other hand, fiscal instruments, such
as pollution taxes or marketable pollution permits, provide incentives to factories
for adopting least-cost pollution abatement technologies. There have been no
serious attempts in India to use such instruments for the abatement of industrial
pollution. The current water cess, whose objective is to raise revenue to pollution
control boards, is very nominal. Some of the recent research studies on water
pollution abatement in India conclude that the rate of pollution tax on industrial
water use should be several times higher than the prevailing rate of water cess if we
want to realize the prescribed water quality standards in the country (Murty and
Kumar 2011).
7.3 Alternative Water Pollution Abatement Policies and Impact
145
A consistent application of polluterpays principle and a more effective use of

economic instruments would be the rationale way of internalizing pollution-related
costs. The economic instruments relating to pollution control policies have been
classified under the following categories (Mehta et al. 1997): (a) direct economic
instruments involving pollution charges/taxes, user charges, tradable permit
scheme, deposit refund scheme on used materials and strict liability for potential
damages; (b) indirect economic instruments such as taxes/charges on products
which generates pollution, taxes/charges on inputs used in production of goods
which generates pollution, subsidies on goods which are complements (substitutes)
to goods whose production results in pollution, and fiscal incentives for encouraging clean technologies, abatement technologies, and conservation of resources; and
(c) financial support for development of environment friendly technologies, common effluent treatment plants, recycling operations, and enhancing the competence
of agencies dealing with environment protection policies.
The water-polluting firms in Indian industry are supposed to meet the standards
set for pollutants (35 mg/L for BOD, 250 mg/L for COD, and 100 mg/L for SSP) by
the Central Pollution Control Board. A survey of a sample of water-polluting
industries in India shows that most of the firms have effluent treatment plants and
in addition some firms are using process changes in production and input choices to
achieve effluent standards (Murty and Kumar 2011).
However, there is a large variation in the degree of compliance among the firms
measured in terms of ratio of standard to effluent quality. The laxity of formal
environmental regulations by the government and the use of command and control
instruments could be regarded as factors responsible for large variations in complying with pollution standards by firms (Murty and Kumar 2011). Murty and
Kumar (2004) provide estimates of taxes on one ton of BOD, COD, and SS as
Rs. 20,157, Rs. 48,826, and Rs. 21,444, respectively.
In this backdrop, this chapter will carry out several experiments based on
alternative set of instruments developed by us. In the next section, we are focusing
on the impact of different abatement policies on sectoral output and price of the
Indian economy. Two scenarios are developed followed by a discussion on the
output and price impact.
7.3
Alternative Water Pollution Abatement Policies

and Impact
From the cost estimation process in Chap. 4, we observed that not all the industries
have CETPs or ETPs. While preparing the abatement cost of industries, we found
that many of the industries are not maintaining the pollution standards. The
industries have introduced ETPs/CETPs but not at the required level. In reality,
146
those sectors are quite far from the required effluent standards of different water
pollution parameters.
7.3.1
Scenario 1
If these industries could maintain the standards required, then the total abatement
cost would increase. This additional cost to achieve the standards can be treated as
pollution tax. These pollution tax rates will be different for different industries. For
this study, we could estimate abatement cost only for 16 industries as discussed in
Chap. 4. The common sectors for clean water treatment and further pollution tax
implementation are estimated for 16 industries such as dairy; livestock; mining;
sugar; tea, coffee, and beverages; food products; cotton textile; jute, hemp, and
mesta textiles; miscellaneous textile; paper and paper products; leather and leather
products; rubber and rubber products; inorganic chemicals; organic chemicals;
other chemicals; and paints, varnishes, and lacquers. The additional cost borne by
these 16 industries will have impact on the whole economy because of the
interdependent structure of the industries as captured by the inputoutput model
(Chap. 3).
7.3.1.1
Impacts on Output
Table 7.1 records the impacts of pollution abatement on the different sectors. To
have a greater insight, a summary view has been prepared and presented in Table 7.2
which records the list of sectors classified based on degree of impact on output. It is
observed that inorganic heavy chemicals witnessed the largest impact followed by
organic heavy chemical. On the other hand, the electricity gas and water, mining
and quarrying, and coal and lignite sectors grew more than 5 % as the output of
these sectors are used as inputs by the pollution abatement sector, that is, clean
water sector. Other sectors of the economy will also see some indirect impact.
Among them are plastic products, paper products, petroleum and coal tar products,
fertilizer, pesticides, synthetic fiber, and resin, as others see only marginal impact
(above 1 % and less than 5 %). The clean water sector is expected to experience a
significant growth. With the pollution abatement strategy applied on 16 industries,
it is expected to have more clean water as evident from Table 7.1.
7.3.1.2
Impact on Prices
Table 7.3 presents the effect of pollution abatement policies on prices only. In
Table 7.4, we categorized price impact in several groups: above 4 %, above 1 % but
below 4 %, and below 1 %.
147
Table 7.1 Effect of pollution abatement cost policies on output (scenario 1)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
Jute hemp mesta textile
Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
Other services
Clean water
Total
New gross output

57,686,112.30
15,813,534.82
14,442,986.66
8,606,281.58
4,016,113.97
4,876,332.71
9,699,611.62
4,114,396.05
5,056,751.61
8,513,760.30
16,868,852.37
7,754,938.04
5,135,235.62
611,321.84
11,265,409.75
2,234,179.10
6,002,441.49
2,221,507.78
4,005,570.01
5,617,771.04
29,803,129.19
7,096,709.28
4,101,604.83
4,835,460.83
1,212,530.45
2,678,599.65
16,763,162.49
4,136,050.07
9,778,487.44
26,027,267.52
34,802,133.19
37,556,625.97
15,208,599.73
12,201,724.80
90,765,672.80
21,129,134.13
72,920,533.79
214,387,499.25
6,132,045.98
806,080,080.07
Old gross output

57,629,197
15,759,855
14,438,630
8,588,824
4,015,304
4,636,815
9,186,905
4,102,013
5,047,260
8,496,684
16,848,685
7,750,841
5,125,327
605,491
11,256,847
2,206,365
5,928,380
2,212,585
3,982,413
5,550,096
29,303,980
4,404,579
3,712,881
4,780,094
1,174,691
2,656,868
16,483,235
4,019,046
9,742,535
25,940,192
34,583,931
37,431,227
15,185,879
12,103,599
90,623,003
19,268,534
72,472,275
213,520,795
3,025,939
793,801,798
% change
0.098
0.340
0.030
0.203
0.020
5.165
5.580
0.301
0.188
0.200
0.119
0.052
0.193
0.962
0.076
1.260
1.249
0.403
0.581
1.219
1.703
61.121
10.469
1.158
3.221
0.817
1.698
2.911
0.369
0.335
0.630
0.335
0.149
0.810
0.157
9.656
0.6185
0.405
102.649
1.546
As noticed from Table 7.4, sugar, cotton textile, tea and beverages, and electricity gas and water sectors show a greater percentage effect on prices (i.e., prices
increase around 5 %). Other sectors such as organic heavy chemicals, paints, other
148
Table 7.2 List of sectors classified based on percentage effects on output

Scenario 1
Above 50 %
Above 10 %
Above 5 %
Above 1 %
Sectors
Electricity gas and water, mining and quarrying, and coal and lignite
Pesticides, petroleum and coal tar products, fertilizer, other chemicals,
synthetic fiber and resin, plastic products, wood and wood products,
and paper and paper products
Below 1 %
Rest of the sectors
chemicals, iron and steel, and livestock experience more than 1 % but less than 4 %
increase in price. The rest of the other sectors are having marginal increase in price.
Sugar and cotton textile sectors belong to the group 4 % and above. It indicates
that these industries are far from the required standard and have to bear more
pollution tax to comply. On the other hand, price increase for paper, leather, and
rubber products is relatively less (less than 4 %) because there are already some
levels of measures introduced by these sectors.
It is evident that price increases for all the sectors in the economy even though
tax is imposed only on sectors for which we have been able to collect data on water
pollution abatement cost. Sectors which have not been taxed show sign of marginal
price increase as a consequence of indirect effect. Hence, it is emphasized that the
existence of linkages between industries should be accounted for while adopting
pollution control policies (in the nature of tax or charges) because the added cost
would influence the decision (of price fixing) of the sectors in the economy directly
as well as indirectly.
7.3.2
Scenario 2
Due to unavailability of the data for abatement cost of other water-polluting

industries, we have adopted another scenario experiment. On the basis of the total
pollution tax for the 16 sectors which is 0.76 % of gross value added for India for
the year 20062007, it is assumed that this pollution tax rate is imposed on all the
sectors. The tax rate will be the same but the volume of tax will be different across
sectors because the value added differs among the sectors.
As a consequence, the polluting firm takes the initiative of reducing pollution by
itself because the tax rate is fixed in a way that the polluting industry finds it more
cost effective to take up the effluent treatment plant rather than pay the tax amount.
Even if the polluters generate pollution beyond the standards or do not take
abatement measures, the revenues thus collected from taxes would be sufficient
(for the authorities) to cover the pollution control administrative costs and the
149
Table 7.3 Effect of pollution abatement cost policies on prices (scenario 1)

1 Agriculture
2 Other agriculture
3 Milk and milk products
4 Livestock
5 Fishing
6 Coal and lignite
7 Mining and quarrying
8 Sugar
9 Oil and vanaspati
10 Tea, coffee, and beverages
11 Food products
12 Cotton textile
13 Woolen and silk textile
14 Jute hemp mesta textile
15 Miscellaneous textile products
16 Wood and wood products
17 Paper and paper products
18 Leather and leather products
19 Rubber products
20 Plastic products
21 Petroleum and coal tar products
22 Inorganic heavy chemicals
23 Organic heavy chemicals
24 Fertilizers
25 Pesticides
26 Paints, varnishes, and lacquers
27 Other chemicals
28 Synthetic fibers, resin
29 Other nonmetallic mineral products
30 Iron and steel
31 Machinery and metal products
32 Electrical machinery
33 Transport equipment
34 Other machineries
35 Construction
36 Electricity gas and water supply
37 Transport services and communication
38 Other services
39 Clean water
Old price
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
New price after pollution tax % change

1.0047
0.4734
1.0033
0.3282
1.0209
2.0925
1.0208
2.0793
1.0048
0.4838
1.0061
0.6128
1.0070
0.7016
1.0563
5.6322
1.0272
2.7183
1.0486
4.8554
1.0113
1.1300
1.2048
20.475
1.0373
3.7285
1.0098
0.9847
1.1215
12.152
1.0078
0.7780
1.0230
2.3009
1.0227
2.2652
1.0161
1.6063
1.0130
1.2984
1.0098
0.9792
1.0229
2.2898
1.0152
1.5223
1.0104
1.0399
1.0276
2.7616
1.0184
1.8442
1.0295
2.9464
1.0125
1.2508
1.0118
1.1797
1.0167
1.6674
1.0102
1.0222
1.0127
1.2741
1.0101
1.0135
1.0099
0.9917
1.0093
0.9270
1.0487
4.8742
1.0509
5.0873
1.0035
0.3486
1.0145787
1.4578
financial assistance/compensation given to the victims of pollution and provide

subsidy to set up treatment plants.
150
Table 7.4 List of sectors classified based on percentage effects on prices

Scenario 1
Above 4 %
Above 1 %
Sectors
Sugar, cotton textile, electricity gas and water
Tea, coffee, and beverages; organic heavy chemicals, pesticides; paints,
varnishes, and lacquers; other chemicals; iron and steel; and transport
services and communication
Below 1 %
Rest of the sectors
7.3.2.1
Impact on Output
Tables 7.5 and 7.6 show the sectoral output impacts due to the alternative abatement
policy. It is observed that the rate of growth of output varies across sectors.
However, it should be noted that the impact on each sectors in terms of output
growth is lower than that of scenario 1 including the clean water sector.
7.3.2.2
Impact on Prices
Imposition of taxes affects the concerned sectors through increase in prices as it

incorporates an additional cost for the particular industry. Tables 7.7 and 7.8 show
the impact on prices estimated from scenario 2. Comparing the price impact based
on the two scenarios, an interesting observation can be made. Sugar and cotton
textile do appear in both cases having more than 4 % increases in price. On the other
hand, the price impact is distributed more or less uniformly across all industries in
scenario 2 having a range of more than 14 % level.
7.4
Effects on Consumers
It is clear from earlier discussion that the price system would be different if through
voluntary action or the need to obey a special law each industry undertakes to
eliminate at its own expense a portion of pollution generated by it, say 9095 %.
They may either engage in pollution abatement operation (alternatively clean water
production) on their own account or be compelled to pay an appropriate proposed
tax for pollution generation above MINAS. The added cost would of course be
included in the price of marketable products. On the other hand, the product will be
more costly if government imposes heavy tax because of generation of pollution
above some specified limits. In that case, the producer will voluntarily take necessary steps to keep the pollution within the specified limits. In these two processes,
the price of the product is bound to increase. However, if the government is not
7.4 Effects on Consumers
151
Table 7.5 Effect of pollution abatement cost policies on output (scenario 2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
Other services
Clean water
Total
New gross output

57,680,926.54
15,808,643.86
14,442,589.72
8,604,690.96
4,016,040.17
4,854,509.61
9,652,897.45
4,113,267.77
5,055,886.81
8,512,204.41
16,867,014.85
7,754,564.78
5,134,332.86
610,790.58
11,264,629.59
2,231,644.89
5,995,693.54
2,220,694.78
4,003,460.11
5,611,604.95
29,757,650.29
6,851,421.49
4,066,187.04
4,830,416.24
1,209,082.80
2,676,619.63
16,737,657.47
4,125,389.51
9,775,211.69
26,019,333.80
34,782,252.16
37,545,200.49
15,206,529.53
12,192,784.26
90,752,673.77
20,959,609.52
72,879,691.62
214,308,531.30
5,275,730.06
804,388,060.90
Old gross output

57,629,197
15,759,855
14,438,630
8,588,824
4,015,304
4,636,815
9,186,905
4,102,013
5,047,260
8,496,684
16,848,685
7,750,841
5,125,327
605,491
11,256,847
2,206,365
5,928,380
2,212,585
3,982,413
5,550,096
29,303,980
4,404,579
3,712,881
4,780,094
1,174,691
2,656,868
16,483,235
4,019,046
9,742,535
25,940,192
34,583,931
37,431,227
15,185,879
12,103,599
90,623,003
19,268,534
72,472,275
213,520,795
3,025,939
793,801,798
% change
0.0897
0.310
0.027
0.185
0.018
4.695
5.072
0.274
0.171
0.183
0.109
0.048
0.176
0.875
0.069
1.146
1.135
0.367
0.528
1.108
1.548
55.552
9.516
1.053
2.928
0.743
1.544
2.646
0.335
0.305
0.573
0.304
0.136
0.737
0.143
8.776
0.562
0.369
74.350
1.334
serious enough regarding pollution control, the producer will be much more
reluctant to control the pollution generation to maximize his profits. In that case,
the public health will deteriorate and health treatment cost will go up.
152
Table 7.6 List of sectors classified based on percentage effects on output

Scenario 1
Above 50 %
Above 5 %
Above 1 %
Sectors
Organic heavy chemicals, electricity gas and water, mining and quarrying
Coal and lignite, pesticides, petroleum and coal tar products, fertilizer,
other chemicals, synthetic fiber and resin, plastic products,
wood and wood products, paper and paper products
Below 1 %
Rest of the sectors
In the end, consumers ultimately bear the burden of pollution generation, either
through price increase due to pollution abatement cost or taxes imposed by the
government on producers or health treatment cost when pollution is not treated.
From the point of view of the household, that is, the consumers the relationship
between real cost and real benefits remain nevertheless the same, having paid for
some abatement activities or tax imposed by government indirectly, he will have to
spend less on health treatment cost indirectly.
7.5
Water Pollution and 12th Five-Year Plan
So far we have discussed the impact of alternative water pollution abatement

policies. However, a closer look at the future load of water pollution in the context
of Indias growth strategy is necessary as it will be useful to the policy makers and
academics. The next task in this section will be to carry out that exercise. Here we
shall consider the 12th Five-Year Plan of India (20112012 to 20162017) (GOI
2013). We have attempted several scenarios to estimate the gross output including
clean water sector in the year 20162017. It is expected that the total output of the
economy will increase with economic growth, but the sectoral growth rate would
likely to vary. We are expecting that the sectoral output changes not only due to the
increase in growth rate of the economy but also due to the implementation of clean
water activities in the economic system.
The following three scenarios have been developed.
Scenario 1: This scenario deals with the business as usual growth rate (8 % p.a.) of
the Indian economy at 20162017. Here the growth rate considered is between
20062007 and 20112012 which is 8.2 %. This growth rate has been applied on
20062007 to project the economy up to 20162017. Table 7.9 shows the annual
sectoral output growth including clean water in 20162017 relative to 2006
2007.
Scenario 2: According to the 12th Five-Year Plan of India, the economy is likely to
grow at a rate of 9.5 % p.a (GOI 2013). Now if the economy grows at a rate of
9.5 % per annum, then the gross output of the Indian economy including clean
7.5 Water Pollution and 12th Five-Year Plan
153
Table 7.7 Effect of pollution abatement cost policies on prices (scenario 2)

1
Agriculture
2
Other agriculture
3
4
Livestock
5
Fishing
6
Coal and lignite
7
8
Sugar
9
Oil and vanaspati
10
11
Food products
12
Cotton textile
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Rubber products
20
Plastic products
21
22
23
24
Fertilizers
25
Pesticides
26
27
Other chemicals
28
29
30
Iron and steel
31
32
33
Transport equipment
34
Other machineries
35
Construction
36
37
38
Other services
39
Clean water
Old price
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
New price after tax

1.0109
1.0101
1.0164
1.0176
1.0108
1.0120
1.0135
1.0613
1.0124
1.0513
1.0169
1.1143
1.0283
1.0138
1.0728
1.0131
1.0170
1.0167
1.0185
1.0168
1.0134
1.0161
1.0162
1.0154
1.0143
1.0205
1.0341
1.0167
1.0151
1.0148
1.0141
1.0168
1.0140
1.0154
1.0141
1.0148
1.0570
1.0105
1.0086
% change
1.09
1.01
1.64
1.76
1.08
1.20
1.35
6.13
1.24
5.13
1.69
11.43
2.83
1.38
7.28
1.31
1.70
1.67
1.85
1.68
1.34
1.61
1.62
1.54
1.43
2.05
3.41
1.67
1.51
1.48
1.41
1.68
1.40
1.54
1.41
1.48
5.70
1.05
0.86
water will be increased accordingly. Table 7.9 calculates the annual sectoral
output growth including clean water in 20162017 relative to 20062007 on the
basis of scenario 2.
Scenario 3: According to the RBIs survey of professional forecasters, the Indian
economy is expected to grow at 7.5 % per annum during the coming 5 years.
154
Table 7.8 List of sectors classified based on percentage effects on prices

Scenario 2
Above 4 %
Above 1 %below 4 %
Sectors
Sugar; tea, coffee, and beverages; miscellaneous textile products;
cotton textile; transport service; and communication
Rest of the sectors
This implies expectations of substantial improvement in the growth from previous years (2012) 5 % and the expected 6 % growth in the current year (2013)
(CMIE 2013).
The economy had grown at 7.8 % and 7.9 % per annum during the 10th and 11th
Five-Year Plan periods, respectively. The 12th plan period could see a substantial
slowing down from these growth rates. As the current growth rate decreases,
expectations of the medium- and long-term growth prospects also dropped. The
RBIs survey of professional forecasters reflects this shift. In the 20th round in
AprilJune 2012, the expectation was that in the next 5 years, India would achieve a
growth rate of 7.3 % per annum. This expectation dropped to 7.0 % by the 23rd
round in JanuaryMarch 2013 (CMIE 2013).
If we believe that the professional forecasters expectation of 7.5 % per annum
growth in the next 5 years is evenly spread over the next 3 years, then the 12th plan
periods growth works out to 6.8 %. If we accept the prime ministers 8.0 % growth
in the coming 3 years, then the growth scales up to 7.0 %. And, if we accept the
further one percentage point increase per annum expected by the finance minister,
then the growth works out to 7.3 % (CMIE 2013).
Thus, current expectations seem to suggest that the economy would grow in the
range of 6.87.3 % per annum in the 12th Five-Year Plan. The mean expectation is
just a shade above 7.0 % per annum (CMIE 2013). For the current exercise, we have
considered 7.0 % p.a. to see the output and price effect for Indian economy till
20162017.
7.6
Results and Discussion1
The results of three scenarios are shown in Table 7.9, which shows the annual
percentage change in growth. We observed that the sectoral impacts do differ
according to scenarios.
To project the economy we have considered the followings steps. First the economy has been
updated from 20062007 to 20112012 considering the past growth rate. Second the aggregate
final demand has been projected from 20112012 to 20162017 based on three scenarios
(Business-as usual, 9.5 % p.a and 7 % p.a). Sectoral final demand has been estimated using
the compositional changes between 19981999 and 20062007.
7.6 Results and Discussion
155
Table 7.9 Annual growth of sectoral output based on three scenarios in 20162017
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
Other services
Clean water
Total
Scenario 1
5.152
6.064
4.954
5.028
7.576
8.914
11.529
7.766
7.651
18.172
11.161
8.809
4.651
7.963
12.232
9.374
8.718
6.312
7.542
8.627
9.101
8.287
2.712
5.745
7.256
11.755
9.789
6.979
13.471
8.740
7.750
12.293
7.088
7.338
10.871
8.561
8.748
8.059
7.536
8.662
Scenario 2
6.900
7.918
6.680
6.762
9.604
11.096
14.013
9.368
9.459
21.423
13.603
9.127
6.341
10.035
14.798
10.813
11.045
8.489
10.009
10.777
11.305
10.378
4.405
7.562
9.248
14.265
12.073
9.531
15.668
10.902
9.798
14.865
9.057
10.070
13.279
10.702
10.911
10.143
9.560
10.804
Scenario 3
3.532
5.733
4.230
4.674
7.174
7.210
8.055
6.757
7.198
10.527
6.407
7.387
4.272
7.164
7.444
7.900
7.503
5.196
6.975
7.179
7.338
7.169
1.915
5.130
6.164
7.749
7.601
6.755
8.024
6.615
7.161
8.600
6.474
6.671
8.103
6.754
7.413
6.533
7.033
6.773
156
Table 7.10 List of sectors classified based on percentage growth of output under three scenarios
Scenario 1
Above 10 %
p.a. growth
Scenario 2
Above 10 %
p.a. growth
Sectors
Tea, coffee, and beverages; mining and quarrying; miscellaneous textile
products; food products; paints and varnishes; electrical machinery; other
nonmetallic mineral products; construction; and clean water
Sectors
Coal and lignite; tea and beverages; other nonmetallic mineral products;
mining and quarrying; jute, hemp, and mesta textiles; miscellaneous
textile products; food products; wood and wood products; rubber and
rubber products; paints and varnishes; electrical machinery; construction;
paper and paper products; plastic products; petroleum and coal tar
products; inorganic heavy chemicals; other chemicals; iron and steel;
electricity gas and water; and transport service and communication
Sectors
Scenario 3
Above 10 %
p.a. growth
A concise form of Table 7.9 is given in Table 7.10 which provides more insight
in that direction.
The sector tea, coffee, and beverages appear for all three scenarios having 10 %
above growth. The number of sectors having more than 10 % p.a. have increased in
scenario 2 compared to scenario 1. Around 20 sectors are likely to increase at 10 %
p.a. out of 39 sectors in scenario 2. Few common sectors are observed across
scenario 1 and 2 having more than 10 % p.a. growth. These are other nonmetallic
mineral products, tea, coffee, and beverages; mining and querying; miscellaneous
textile products; food products; paints and varnishes; electrical machinery; and
construction. The other additional sectors present in scenario 2 are jute, hemp, and
mesta textiles; wood and wood products; rubber and rubber products; paper and
paper products; plastic products; petroleum and coal tar products; inorganic heavy
chemicals; other chemicals; iron and steel; and electricity gas and water.
Analysis of the growth rate of different sectors across the scenarios reveals that
water pollution-generating sectors will also grow rapidly. Accordingly, as abatement activities continue, the output of clean water sector will also grow accordingly. Therefore, our next task is to estimate the volume of water pollution
parameters in the year 20162017. Here we assume that the pollution coefficient
will remain unchanged over the period. The volume of 10 types of water pollution
parameters across three scenarios are presented in Table 7.11. Sector wise pollution
generated is given in Appendices 7.A.1, 7.A.2, 7.A.3. It shows that each pollutant
volume will differ according to the growth rate in each scenario. For example,
scenario 2 shows the highest pollution volume for all water pollution parameters as
it considers the highest growth rate at 9.5 %.
Appendices
Table 7.11 Water pollution
under three scenarios in
20162017 (thousand tons)
157
SS
DS
Chloride
Sulfide
Oil/grease
Phenol
Zinc
Others
BOD
COD
20062007
203,228.8
66,201.22
3,144.41
1,227.531
3,737.282
428.54
39.07
14,290.62
81,668.44
174,803.1
Scenario 1
385,978
126,778
5,711.27
2,356.6
6,091.53
739.04
91.682
22,764.9
127,857
279,599
Scenario 2
429,820
131,323
6,386.88
2,629.1
6,797.72
841.09
100.343
25,381.8
142,650
308,735
Scenario 3
348,515.2
115,285.6
5,080.033
2,060.861
5,539.726
700.5268
70.468
20,792.2
115,123
254,668
Appendices
Appendix 7.A.1: Sector Wise Pollution Generated for Ten
Pollutants in the Year 20162017 (Scenario 1)
Sectors/thousand tons
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
products
Rubber products
Plastic products
products
Fertilizers
SS
32,529.149
11.170
2,949.267
2,706.413
14.783
0.000
251.572
66.362
56.641
434.740
144.676
7,304.803
310.016
496.668
800.704
DS
0.000
1.867
4,561.081
805.922
0.000
0.855
535.059
264.272
0.000
10,531.795
0.000
102,821.9
760.586
0.222
172.285
Chloride
0.000
0.000
413.868
0.000
0.000
0.070
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
733.349
1,161.30
2,002.09
Sulfide
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.142
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
337.341
679.081
1,089.84
Oil/
grease
2,345.917
1.513
1,141.649
220.084
6.451
0.000
52.682
23.069
58.310
0.000
193.324
0.000
22.426
9.038
15.347
Phenol
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.759
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.933
2.528
1.112
0.000
1,231.678
632.704
143.827
0.000
583.205
0.000
0.000
913.497
1,142.447
151.923
1,665.783
0.000
0.000
919.627
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.275
17.896
0.000
213.623
0.000
0.000
0.000
22.704
0.000
1,697.836
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
19.922
39.149
216.500
523.316
1,429.911
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
230.034 68.221
0.000
0.000
(continued)
158
SS
DS
Chloride Sulfide
Oil/
grease
Phenol
Pesticides
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
supply
communication
Other services
Total
158.143
45.241
0.003
0.000
117.908
0.000
0.000
1,018.976
0.000
0.000
160.252
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
51.142
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
23.604
0.000
0.000
0.000
1,836.212
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
332,372.9
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
320.699
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
11.387
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
60.565
189.17
0.000
0.000
369.22
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
385,977.8
0.000
126,778.4
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5,711.26 2,356.60 6,091.525 739.04
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Zinc
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.781
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Others
10,630.335
0.011
2,742.484
4,095.240
4.078
0.159
0.000
26.908
0.000
4.569
0.000
337.504
16.943
9.042
1,666.955
0.000
1,824.275
409.909
44.334
0.000
0.000
229.758
27.552
362.771
54.085
BOD
86,944.013
10.076
16,836.468
8,071.381
28.651
0.000
13.926
156.214
328.656
5,938.357
122.036
568.187
264.886
632.123
1,290.024
0.000
939.310
190.346
902.436
50.641
193.894
221.596
989.784
0.000
152.872
COD
136,172.607
24.304
37,062.412
44,457.637
61.240
0.000
0.000
312.429
487.109
12,919.158
209.007
32,500.930
977.114
1,246.185
2,842.501
0.000
1,285.797
760.225
1,729.246
126.603
485.275
657.402
292.087
0.000
695.830
(continued)
Appendices
159
Other chemicals
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
Other services
Total
Zinc
0.000
0.000
0.000
87.901
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
91.682
Others
0.000
0.000
0.000
47.046
230.935
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
22,764.893
BOD
154.082
347.651
0.000
0.000
613.948
641.280
0.000
0.000
1,254.092
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
127,856.93
COD
19.277
1,984.006
0.000
70.665
1,532.054
199.545
0.000
0.000
390.179
0.000
98.078
0.000
0.000
279,598.9

Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
products
Leather and leather
products
Rubber products
Oil/
grease
2,616.599
1.688
1,273.377
245.479
7.195
0.000
58.761
25.149
64.284
0.000
215.631
0.000
25.013
10.081
17.118
Phenol
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.962
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.272
2.820
1.240
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1,042.361 8.246
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
25.897
SS
36,282.512
12.459
3,289.567
3,018.692
16.488
0.000
280.599
72.345
62.443
484.902
161.369
7,428.641
345.787
553.976
893.093
DS
0.000
2.082
5,087.360
898.913
0.000
0.954
596.797
288.099
0.000
11,747.002
0.000
104,565.104
848.346
0.248
192.164
Chloride
0.000
0.000
461.622
0.000
0.000
0.078
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
817.966
1,295.296
2,233.106
0.000
1,384.816
717.144
0.000
0.000
1,035.412
164.053
1,303.105
Sulfide
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.158
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
376.265
757.436
1,215.599
20.412
0.000
(continued)
160
SS
DS
Chloride
Sulfide
Oil/
grease
Plastic products
products
Inorganic heavy
chemicals
Fertilizers
Pesticides
lacquers
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Machinery and metal
products
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
supply
communication
Other services
Total
0.000
650.498
169.453
1,857.989
0.000
0.000
0.000
238.272
0.000
0.000
1,893.740 22.220
43.624
1,593.380
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
245.333
583.699
176.391
50.461
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
178.742
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
260.669
0.000
0.000
57.043
77.306
0.000
0.000
26.328
0.003
0.000
128.940
1,136.550
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2,048.083
0.000
0.000
0.000
357.702
0.000
12.701
0.000
0.000
0.000
67.553
211.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
370,723.7
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
427.38
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
429,819.6
0.000
131,322.95
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6,386.884 2,629.101 6,797.723 841.09
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
Zinc
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.217
0.000
Others
11,856.912
0.013
3,058.925
4,567.767
4.549
0.177
0.000
29.334
0.000
5.096
0.000
343.225
18.898
10.085
1,859.296
0.000
BOD
96,976.014
11.238
18,779.138
9,002.694
31.957
0.000
15.532
170.299
362.326
6,623.552
136.117
577.820
295.449
705.060
1,438.873
0.000
Phenol
COD
151,884.831
27.108
41,338.844
49,587.365
68.306
0.000
0.000
340.597
537.011
14,409.830
233.123
33,051.915
1,089.858
1,389.976
3,170.482
0.000
(continued)
Appendices
161

Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
Other services
Total
Zinc
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
96.125
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.343
Others
2,051.092
464.615
50.569
0.000
0.000
256.025
31.222
404.629
60.326
0.000
0.000
0.000
51.448
257.581
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
25,381.784
BOD
1,056.097
215.750
1,029.343
56.484
216.266
246.929
1,121.600
0.000
170.511
171.861
387.764
0.000
0.000
684.788
715.274
0.000
0.000
1,451.647
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
142,650.383
COD
1,445.664
861.685
1,972.424
141.211
541.268
732.557
330.986
0.000
776.118
21.501
2,212.929
0.000
77.277
1,708.830
222.569
0.000
0.000
451.644
0.000
109.395
0.000
0.000
308,735.306

SS
DS
Chloride Sulfide
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
29,050.65
10.94005
2,806.467
2,642.656
14.44524
0
210.9791
62.59239
55.18701
316.7578
112.1726
6,752.696
0
1.8285
4,340.2
786.93
0
0.7779
448.72
249.26
0
7,673.6
0
95,050.5
0
0
393.829
0
0
0.06390
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12920
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oil/
grease
Phenol
2,095.056 0
1.481794 0
1,086.371 0
214.8996 0
6.303693 0
0
0
44.18139 1.47519
21.75878 0
56.81361 0
0
0
149.8917 0
0
0
(continued)
162
SS
DS
Chloride Sulfide
Oil/
grease
Phenol

Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
supply
communication
Other services
Total
301.9862
474.5933
628.2541
0
1,151.709
589.4403
139.1766
0
529.3798
36.75452
202.9253
502.8546
148.1316
36.91135
0.002487
0
90.54471
740.88
0.2122
135.17
0
0
851.033
1,105.51
140.11
1,512.0
1,342.4
0
0
0
0
906.28
0
0
714.354
1,109.68
1,570.89
0
0
856.744
0
0
0
0
0
0
150.106
0
0.00710
0
0
328.603
648.898
855.123
0
0
6.77780
17.3170
0
193.906
0
0
0
0
0
0.00888
0
0
21.84496
8.636562
12.04153
0
0
0
21.96988
0
1,541.137
0
215.6105
0
0
41.72588
0
0
0
2.857418
2.41611
0.872575
0
0
0
0
0
18.08304
0
63.9435
0
0
19.2581
0
0
0
1,628.061
0
0
0
0
0
300,018.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
284.344
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.0963
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53.6993
182.9052
0
0
355.0163
0
0
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
0
0
0
0
0
0
348,515.2 115,285 5,080.03 2,060.86 5,539.725 700.526
Zinc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Others
9,493.5837
0.0110346
2,609.6967
3,998.7663
3.9848962
0.1444844
0
25.379379
0
3.3291249
0
311.99473
16.50445
BOD
77,646.683
9.8681205
16,021.268
7,881.2399
27.997331
0
11.678639
147.3414
320.22218
4,326.7744
94.618876
525.24285
258.02491
COD
121,611.03
23.803294
35,267.898
43,410.329
59.842148
0
0
294.68279
474.60834
9,413.0893
162.05088
30,044.469
951.80616
(continued)
References

Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Other chemicals
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
Other services
Total
163
Zinc
0
2.9668
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67.501
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70.468
Others
8.6400142
1,307.9378
0
1,705.8308
381.87965
42.900875
0
0
215.7074
25.8248
348.5870
50.66103
0
0
0
36.12793
204.7561
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,792.24
BOD
604.02784
1,012.1872
0
878.32388
177.33063
873.26017
46.703686
175.9989
208.0444
927.7237
0
143.1939
125.7126
309.2032
0
0
544.3516
620.0177
0
0
1,205.829
0
0
0
0
115,122.8
COD
1,190.7977
2,230.3021
0
1,202.3149
708.24224
1,673.3385
116.75921
440.4875
617.1985
273.7731
0
651.7794
15.727448
1,764.591
0
54.26542
1,358.382
192.9288
0
0
375.1637
0
88.53110
0
0
254,668.2
References
New Delhi
and International Policy Issues EERC working paper series, NIP-1, Government of India
CMIE (2013) CMIE-economic outlook. Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, Mumbai
Dasgupta S, Wang H, Wheeler D (1997) Surviving success: policy reform and the future of
industrial pollution in China. Working paper 1856. World Bank, Washington, DC
Datt D, Garg SC, Kadekodi GK, Narang KK, Sharma D, Singh JP (2004) Environmental fiscal
reform in India: issues and some steps forward (draft). TERI, New Delhi
GOI (1997) Report of the task force to evaluate market based instruments for industrial pollution
abatement. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi
GOI (2013) Twelfth five year plan document 201217. Planning Commission. Government of
India, New Delhi
164
Kinniburgh DG, Smedley PA (eds) (2001) Arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh.

BGS technical report WC/00/19. British Geological Survey/Department of Public Health
Engineering, Keyworth/Dhaka
Kumar S, Managi S (2009) Economics of sustainable development: the case of India. Springer,
New York
Mehta S, Mundle S, Sarkar U (1997) Controlling pollution: incentives & regulations. Sage, New
Delhi
Murty MN, Kumar S (2004) Environmental and economic accounting for industry. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi
Scheierling S (1995) Overcoming agricultural pollution of water: the challenge of integrating
agricultural and environmental policies in the European Union. Technical paper 269. World
UNEP (2002) Cleaner production worldwide, vol II. United Nations Environment Programme,
Paris
Zhang C, Huq M, Dasgupta S, Wheeler D (1996) Water pollution abatement by Chinese industry:
cost estimates and policy implications. Working paper 1630. World Bank, Washington, DC
Chapter 8
Estimates of Green GDP
8.1
Introduction
So far we have studied different aspects of water resources, direct and indirect water
pollution generation, abatement cost, and its effect on output, prices as well as on
consumers in India.
Environmental deterioration due to water pollution generation has adverse effect
on human welfare of a country. The need to account for the environment and the
economy in an integrated way arises because of the crucial functions of the
environment in economic performance and in the generation of human welfare.
Conventional national accounts focus on the measurement of economic performance and growth as reflected in market activity. GDP is usually defined as the total
market value of all final goods and services produced within a territory in a given
period of time (usually a year), including net exports. It has been used as a standard
measure of the size of an economy in national accounting and is often regarded as
an indicator of economic performance. GDP omits many of the important goods
and services that we derive from nature because its scope is delimited completely
by the market. Conventional national accounts have only partly accounted for these
functions, focusing on market transactions and indicators that reflect important
factors in welfare generation, but they do not measure welfare itself. These accounts
as indicators of economic performance have failed to consider the actual scarcity of
natural resources and corresponding welfare losses.
However, new scarcities of natural resources now threaten the sustained productivity of the economy while economic production and consumption activities
may impair environmental quality by overloading natural sinks with wastes and
pollutants. By not accounting for the private and social costs of the use of natural
resources and the degradation of the environment, conventional accounts may send
wrong signals of progress to decision makers who may then set society on a
non-sustainable development path (UN 2000). Growing pressures on the environment and an increasing environmental awareness have generated the need to

165
166
account for the manifold interactions between all sectors of the economy and the
environment.
For a more comprehensive assessment of the sustainability of growth and
development, the scope and coverage of economic accounting needs to include
the use of nonmarketed natural assets and losses in income generation resulting
from the depletion and degradation of natural capital (Bartelmus 1999).
Green GDP is simply a conventional gross domestic product figure adjusted for
the environmental costs of economic activities. It is a measure of how a country is
prepared for sustainable economic development. The concept of green GDP arose
in the early 1990s in response to the deficiencies of the traditional gross domestic
product (GDP) to account for the economic costs of depleted natural resources and
incurred pollution, which in turn affect human welfare. Green GDP is an index of
economic growth with the environmental consequences of that growth factored
in. Some environmental experts prefer physical indicators (such as waste per
capita or carbon dioxide emissions per year), which may be aggregated to
indices such as the sustainable development index (World Bank 2012).
Natural resource accounting (NRA) is a necessary step to measure sustainability
of development. It provides indicators of loss of natural resources, changes in
environmental quality, and their consequence for long-term economic development. There is considerable debate and controversy going on environmental
accounting (Perman et al. 1996). The debate on environmental accounting is largely
centered on the incorporation of environmental costs and benefits in national
accounts.
In order to cope with these shortcomings, the United Nations and the World
Bank have developed alternative macro-indicators for environmentally adjusted
and sustainable national income and products. The UN Statistical Division
published a System of National Accounts Handbook in 1993 to provide a conceptual basis for the implementation of a System for Integrated Environmental and
Economic Accounting (SEEA) and environmentally adjusted domestic product
(Green GDP) that illustrate the interrelationships between the natural environment
and the economy.
Based on this, the United Nations has published a set of accounting guidelines in
the Handbook of National Accounting: Integrated Environmental and Economic
Accounting known as SEEA (UN 1993, 2003), which provide a common framework for valuating environmental contributions to economies and economic
impacts on the environment (Wu and Wu 2010).
8.2
A Brief Review on Resource Accounting
Some attempts have already made towards green GDP in developed countries. The
treatment of environmental issues in the accounting framework was initiated by
Nordhares and Tobin (IGIDR 1992) in the United states and the work on developing
a natural resource accounting framework began in Norway in 1974 (Alfsen 1994).
8.2 A Brief Review on Resource Accounting
167
Physical accounting of resources was later followed by French (beginning 1978)

and Canadian government also. World Resource Institute (WRI) developed a
methodology for natural resource accounting (Repetto et al. 1989) and initiated a
few country studies using their methodology. The SEEA was tested in Canada,
Colombia, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Papua, New Guinea, the Philippines,
the Republic of Korea, Thailand, and the United States. Costanza et al. (1997) have
estimated the economic value of the worlds ecosystem services to be US$33
trillion per year on average, mostly outside the market and almost twice as much
as the global GDP total.
In the case of developing countries, we find very few attempts to measure green
GDP. China has included the costs of environmental degradation into economic
growth and published its green GDP data for the years 2004 and 2006 (Wu and Wu
2010). In India, efforts have also been made since the 1990s.
A framework for NRA of India has been prepared by IGIDR in 1992(IGIDR
1992). This framework considers the guidelines given by the United Nations
through their documents for Integrated Economic and Environmental Accounting
(UN 1993).
Another major attempt in that direction was constituted by GAISP (the Green
Accounting for Indian States and Union Territories Project) in 2004. GAISP
proposes to build a framework of adjusted national accounts that represents genuine
net additions to national wealth. These are referred to as green accounts. Green
accounts for India and its states will provide a much better measure of development
than GDP (national income) growth percentages and GSDP (gross state domestic
product) growth measures and will encourage the emergence of sustainable development as a focus of economic policy at the operative state level. GAISP evaluates
a series of related set of areas of adjustments to GSDP accounts. These are as
follows.
(1) The value of timber, carbon, fuelwood, and non-timber forest produce in
Indias forests; (2) estimating the value of agricultural cropland and pasture land in
India; (3) the value of Indias subsoil assets; (4) eco-tourism and biodiversity values
in India; (5) estimating the value of educational capital formation in India;
(6) investments in health and pollution control and their value to India; (7) accounting for the ecological services of Indian forests: soil conservation, water augmentation, and flood prevention; and (8) estimating the value of freshwater resources in
India. Some of these are briefly reviewed. GAISP Monograph 4 (Gundimeda
et al. 2006) attempts to value the biodiversity functions of Indias natural ecosystems and suggest a method to adjust national (GDP) and state income (GSDP)
accounts. The study indicates that the biodiversity benefits of forests are very
material in the aggregate and significant with respect to national and state GDP.
GAISP Monograph 7 attempts to account for three functions of forests (1) soil
conservation (prevention of soil erosion), (2) water augmentation, and (3) avoidance
of flood damage on broad ecological criteria and indicators. It is logical to assume
that if the forest area is not disturbed, the national total value of ecological benefits
103.76 billion rupees in 2001 would recur every year to the society forever
(Gundimeda et al. 2007). GAISP Monograph 8 attempts to estimate the economic
168
cost of deterioration in water quality, over the period of study (19932003). In

states like Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, and Sikkim, the incidence of pollution is
quite high and, therefore, the stock of fresh water capital is depleted in these states.
In industrialized states like Gujarat, Goa, and Tamil Nadu, the water availability
may not be very high, but these states face pollution at a larger scale. Groundwater
pollution contributes significantly to the overall pollution and hence to the total cost
of pollution abatement. This monograph shows that the cost of treating only the
water for drinking purposes is high. If the treatment of water for irrigation and
industry was also required or if water quality continued to decline, the result would
be unsustainable. The cost of treatment would far exceed the state net GDP (Kumar
et al. 2007).
Gundimeda et al. (2007) applied an SEEA-based methodology to reflect the true
value of forest resources in Indias national and state accounts. They have
addressed four components of value creation in forests: timber production, carbon
storage, fuelwood usage, and the harvesting of non-timber forest products. The
results of their analysis suggest that prevailing measures of national income in India
underestimate the contribution of forests to income. They were also able to identify
some states which performed poorly in the context of sustainability framework,
reflecting natural capital losses due to degradation and deforestation. The integrated
national and forest accounts for the year 20022003 show that the ratio of ESDP
(environmentally adjusted state domestic product) to NSDP (net state domestic
product) is less than 1, reflecting that the growth has come at the expense of
environmental degradation for India. For an economy to be on a sustainable path,
the ratio of ESDP to NSDP should be greater than one. In the states Arunachal
Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Kerala, and Tamil
Nadu, the ratio of ESDP to adjusted NSDP (i.e., adjusted for unaccounted forest
income) is greater than 1, whereas for other states it is at or below 1. They found
that some of these states are experiencing great stress on their forests (especially
states which are highly dependent on tourism) and others are experiencing stress
due to very state-specific factors. For the state of Goa, well known for tourism, they
found that there is significant depletion of 5 % of adjusted NSDP. In Himachal
Pradesh, depletion as percent of adjusted NSDP works out to almost 26 %.
Very recently, a comprehensive work has been done by the World Bank (2012).
It estimates the social and financial costs of environmental damage in India due to
urban air pollution; inadequate water supply, poor sanitation, and hygiene; and
indoor air pollution. It also estimates the monetary valuation of three natural
resource damages: (1) agricultural damage from soil salinity, water logging, and
soil erosion; (2) rangeland degradation; and (3) deforestation. The study estimates
the total cost of environmental degradation in India at about 3.75 trillion rupees (US
$80 billion) annually, equivalent to 5.7 % of gross domestic product in 2009. Of this
total, outdoor air pollution accounts for 1.1 trillion rupees, followed by the cost of
indoor air pollution at 0.9 trillion rupees, cropland degradation cost at 0.7 trillion
rupees, inadequate water supply and sanitation cost at around at 0.5 trillion rupees,
pasture degradation cost at 0.4 trillion rupees, and forest degradation cost at 0.1
trillion rupees.
8.4 Environmental Degradation
169
Recently, the Government of India (MOEF chief) announced that Indias GDP
numbers would be adjusted with economic costs of environmental degradation by
2015 (Green GDP 2009). The green GDP estimate would be a huge step in
environmental governance for India. The Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation is preparing a national database to calculate the cost of depletion of
natural resources. India would be one of the few countries to release a green GDP
estimate.
Towards that end, an attempt has been made in this chapter to measure the
environmentally adjusted domestic product (EDP) as well as welfare loss for India
due to water pollution. The current exercise compiled part of the SEEA framework.
The reasons behind these are the lack of data and the controversies relating to
certain valuations of nature services and their welfare effects.
8.3
Different Categories of Adjustments to the National

Accounts
There is now a wide measure of agreement that the conventional system of National
Accounts, in most countries that are based upon the System of National Account
(SNA), designed by the United Nations Statistical Office, is not adequate as a means
of measuring the impact of environmental changes on income and welfare (Perman
et al. 1996). The conceptual basis of the National Account is governed by definition
of income and wealth which did not make any allowance for depletion of natural
capital or the cost of environmental damage such as pollution. However, the
production and consumption activities have environmental side effects which
imposed considerable cost.
So there are three categories of adjustments to the national accounts, which have
been proposed to reflect the cost and benefits of human activity on the environment.
These are the (a) depletion of natural capital, (b) environmental degradation, and
(c) defensive expenditure.
8.4
Environmental Degradation
Environmental degradation describes the erosion of the natural environment

through the depletion of resources, the destruction of ecosystems, and the extinction
of plant and animal species. It is caused by direct or indirect human activity. The
extraction of natural resources and the production of waste and other pollutants
have severely degraded many of the planets ecosystems. Mining, deforestation,
fossil fuel burning, and pollution are just some of the human activities that have led
to the environmental degradation.
170
A significant number of industries (livestock, oil refineries, coal, chemical

industries, distilleries, man-made fiber, dye, leather, textiles, etc.) in India are
producing pollution above the environmental standard by several times. These
industries are discharging wastewater onto land and water in an alarming proportion, thus degrading land and water resources. This degradation of resources is
hazardous to health, fertility of land, aquatic life, etc.
The cost of environmental degradation in India is roughly comparable with other
countries with similar income level. Studies of the cost of environmental degradation were conducted using a similar methodology in Pakistan, a low-income
country, and several low- and lower-middle-income countries in Asia, Africa, and
Latin America. They show that monetary value of increased morbidity, mortality,
and natural resources degradation typically amounts to 410 % of GDP, compared
to 5.7 % of GDP in India1 (World Bank 2012).
In the following subsection, we elaborate how we have estimated the different
components of green GDP for India. We have considered health hazards, damages
to crops, and defensive expenditure to arrive at green GDP estimate in India for the
year 20062007.
8.4.1
Health Hazards
The main health impacts of unclean water and poor hygiene are diarrheal diseases,
typhoid, and paratyphoid. In addition, there are costs in the form of averting
expenditures to reduce health risk. Diarrheal and related illness contributes to the
major share of the health cost. In India, about 67 % of all diseases are waterborne
which includes typhoid, jaundice, cholera, and dysentery. Research by Jodhpur
University Chemistry Department (CSE 1985) has identified several carcinogenic
compounds in the effluents. The Gandhi Peace Foundations (GPF) identified various forms of cancer, among other diseases in the area. In India, one study (IGIDR
1992) has estimated that in terms of health hazards, waterborne communicable
diseases affect a large number of people and about 73 million workdays are loss
annually due to water-related diseases. Waterborne infections, which account for
about 80 % of sickness in India, make every fourth person dying of such diseases in
the world an Indian. Annually, 1.5 million deaths are attributed to waterborne
diseases.
Parikh (2004) provided an estimate of damage costs due ill effects of water
pollution and poor sanitation facilities in 1995 which amounts to Rs. 366 billion
(3.95 % of the GDP). It may, however, be emphasized that these damage costs do
1
The environmental media included in the analysis include indooroutdoor air pollution, inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene, and natural resource degradation (soils salinity/
erosion, pastures degradation, deforestation and forest degradation, fishery loss). Losses from
natural disasters were included in CED study in Peru and in Iran.
171
not fully reflect the loss in social welfare. These estimates only suggest that the
abatement of pollution is socially desirable and economically justified. This estimate has been used in this study making necessary adjustment in prices2 which
becomes 622 billion rupees.
The World Bank (2012) noted that a significant part of the health burden,
especially from water supply, sanitation, and hygiene, is borne by children under
5. It suggests that about 23 % of all under-5 mortality can be associated with indoor
air pollution and inadequate water supply, sanitation, and hygiene. The Office of the
Registrar General indicates that 14 % of child mortality was due to intestinal
diseases. Based on this, a baseline diarrheal mortality rate of 14 % of under-5
child mortality is used for diarrheal mortality estimation. Moreover, the study
shows that 88 % of diarrheal illness is attributable to water, sanitation, and hygiene.
It also provides estimates of DALYs lost to waterborne diseases. About 60 % of the
DALYs are from diarrheal child mortality. Typhoid/paratyphoid deaths add another
20 % of DALY (World Bank 2012). The total cost including cost of mortality and
morbidity due to waterborne diseases is estimated at 489 billion rupees. This
estimate is also used as health cost in the current exercise.
8.4.2
Damages to Crops
We have considered the estimates of damages to crop for arriving at green GDP for
India using two different sources: (1) World Bank study in 2012 and (2) GAISP
Monograph 2 (Gundimeda et al. 2005).
Major categories of land degradation in India are similar to those in other Asian
countries. They include (1) water and wind soil erosion and, in particular,
irrigation-related land degradation, including secondary salinity, water logging,
and irrigation-related soil erosion; (2) pasture and range land degradation; and
(3) degradation of forests and bushes and related loss of biodiversity. Land degradation not only affects agricultural productivity, biodiversity, and wildlife but also
increases the likelihood for natural hazards (World Bank 2007). Crops irrigated
with polluted waters of rivers, reservoirs, and lakes have high probability of
damages of various forms. Moreover, excessive acidity or alkalinity (Ph below
4 and above 9) is not suitable for crop growth. Losses to croplands and rangelands
include damages from soil salinity and water logging due to improper irrigation
practices and human-induced soil erosion3 (World Bank 2012). Soil salinity and
water logging reduce the productivity of agricultural lands, and if a threshold
2
Using GDP deflator.

Due to the absence of data, the World Bank (2012) study considers the annual increase in salinity
and eroded croplands and rangelands, the annual loss of agricultural production (crop and
rangeland fodder) which is estimated based on accumulated degradation. This estimate may be
more or less than the net present value (NPV) of annual production losses depending on the rate of
annual increase in degradation.
3
172
salinity level is exceeded, the land becomes unfit for cultivation. According to the
conventional welfare economics, if agricultural markets are competitive, the economic costs of salinity would be measured as the losses in consumer surplus and
producer surplus associated with the loss in productivity4 (World Bank 2012 The
World Bank study estimated the land degradation in India as 187.8 ha in 2002. It
covers water erosion (loss of topsoil and terrain deterioration), wind erosion,
chemical deterioration (loss of nutrient and salinization), and physical deterioration. Apart from that, another category of agricultural land that cannot be cultivated
at all due to high salinity (13 million hectares) has also been included in their
estimation. In addition to soil salinity, land degradation caused by wind and water
erosion is substantial in India. The major impacts of this erosion are sedimentation
of dams and loss of nutrients in the soil. The soil erosion and the loss of soil
nutrients are valued in terms of the costs to replace the losses.
The estimated cost of soil nutrients (in terms of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potassium) substitution is about 320600 billion rupees. The middle range of this
amount Rs. 460 billion has been considered for this study (0.7 % of GDP in 2010).
The annual losses due to salinity amount to between Rs. 63 and 148 billion. The
middle of the above range is Rs. 110 billion which is equivalent to 0.17 % of GDP
has been considered (World Bank 2012). Adding up the two categories of losses
arising from land degradation in India, we get a total of Rs. 570 billion which has
been used for this study.
On the other hand, the cost of externalities considered by Gundimeda
et al. (2007) included the replacement cost of soil nutrients and cost of treatment
of sediments from the waterways.5 They considered the state wise as well as
national contribution. It is seen that in most of the states agriculture does impose
significant external costs on the environment in the form of soil erosion and
sedimentation of waterways. Their estimate shows that the costs range from 0.3
to 4.5 % of the NSDP (net state domestic product) (adjusted for subsidies) in
different states.6
There are various ways to measure the changes in the quality of soil and land
either through the tons of soil lost or through the lost output approach. The GAISP
4
These losses include direct losses through reduced yields as the land becomes saline or degraded.
In practice, the calculations can be more complex as account needs to be taken of crop substitution
to more saline-tolerant but less profitable crops and other indirect losses (World Bank 2012).
5
The total adjustments for depletion and degradation were computed by summing up the depletion
and externality costs imposed by agriculture on the environment.
6
To estimate the cost of the loss of nutrients through soil erosion, GAISP Monograph 2 used the
replacement cost approach. As soil erosion represents a major cause of on-site nutrient loss, the
volume of soil loss can be used to estimate the nutrient loss of the study area. This will help in
estimating the value of loss in nonmarketed environmental attribute (soil) occurring as a result of
farming activities (marketed good). In order to estimate the value of loss in environmental
attribute, they used the data on macronutrient loss. This loss is specific to the site similar to the
soil erosion data.
173
Monograph 2 (Gundimeda et al. 2007) attempted to value both to get an idea about
how these estimates would differ.7
In the current exercise, we considered the loss of agricultural output due to soil
erosion and land degradation as replacement of soil nutrient cost Rs. 240,854.7
million and sedimentation cost Rs. 90,489 million (total Rs. 331,343.7 million) for
20012002 as estimated in GAISP Monograph 2 (Gundimeda et al. 2007).
8.4.3
Defensive Expenditure
Defensive expenditures can be defined as expenditures incurred by households

and governments to reduce the effects of pollution. More specifically, expenditures
which are incurred to protect environment and to prevent degradation are called
defensive expenditure. Some environmentalists argue that such defensive expenditure should be excluded from or at least deducted from GDP (Daly 2005). Examples
of defensive expenditures for the household include buying water purification
equipment to improve drinking water quality or buying a malaria prophylactic.
For the government, this could include expenditures on litter removal or repairing
degraded recreational sites. There is no agreement on to how to handle these
expenditures.
Maler (1991) argues that such expenditures should not be deducted from the
NDP if the changes in the values of environmental services (e.g., air and water
quality) are included, since this would amount to double counting. Dasgupta
(1995), on the other hand, states that defensive expenditures should be included
in final demand. Bartelmus and van Tongeren (1994) argue that the cost of restoring
polluted or damaged natural environments to their original state at the beginning of
the accounting period should be deducted from NDP.
If defensive expenditure is not undertaken, there is degradation and hence
depletion of natural capital. The defensive expenditure in this study is nothing but
the cost of wastewater treatment.
The cost of wastewater treatment includes
(a) Capital cost: The capital cost of the treatment includes cost of the civil
engineering required for construction of treatment units, installing charges for
mechanical equipment, and electrical works including general lighting and
supplying power to the various units (IGIDR 1992).
(b) Running cost: The running cost of the treatment plant includes cost of power,
salaries of the staff, chemical cost, maintenance, repairs, and depreciation.
For the loss in production method, GAISP Monograph 2 used the net present value of agricultural
land. In the case of salinity, the NBSSLUP (1990) has estimated the loss of production at 25 %
across soil qualities and crops. However, some individual estimates put the losses at about 50 % on
an average for different crops and intensities of degradation (Reddy 2003). GAISP Monograph
2 has used the former value as it gives an aggregate estimate for the whole of India.
174
In this study, we have only considered the operation and maintenance cost of
treatment because valuation of any product (clean water) depends upon the running
expenditure including depreciation. In this study, the total cost involved for the
treatment of wastewater has been calculated to be about Rs. 3,025,929.129 lakhs,
based on water pollution abatement cost estimation in Chap. 4.
8.5
Environmentally Adjusted National Accounting
[The] difference in the treatment of natural resources and other tangible assets
[in the existing national accounts] reinforce the false dichotomy between the
economy and the environment that leads policy makers to ignore or destroy the
latter in the name of economic development (Repetto et al. 1989). Like other
accounting systems, environmental account should link opening stocks, flows to
and from that stocks, and closing stocks. Opening and closing stocks represent the
state of the environment at the beginning and at the end of the accounting period
and flows records the impact of the actions of the economic agents on environment.
However, as in our case we are dealing with water resource, that is, renewable
which implies that its stock is infinite in the present period of time but its future
holds a finite state being depleted gradually over time. So for this study, opening
stock will be accounted only. Environmental accounting seeks to track environmental resource use, including both resource depletion and environmental degradation over a given period of time, the reporting period which is usually a year.
Gross income or products as conventionally measured do not indicate an economically sustainable level until they have been pruned for capital consumption.
Considering the costs of depletion and pollution as consumption of natural capital
suggests that they may be subtracted along with the consumption of produced
capital from GDP and GNI (gross national income) to arrive at environmentally
adjusted net domestic product (EDP) and national income.
Such adjustment will give a more realistic indication of wealth creation and
consumption of goods and services and, of course, where environmental costs are
growing faster than GDP, EDP growth rates will be below those of GDP.
Table 8.1 shows the framework of SEEA with flow and stock account and
environmental assets.
The expansion of the asset boundary of conventional accounts for the inclusion
and valuation of natural assets and asset changes permits the calculation of a range
of aggregates. In this analysis the whole economy has been broken up into two
sectors, one is water resource sector (natural resource) and other sectors are
aggregated into one sector.
The aggregates can be presented as the sum total and elements of conventional
accounting identities. These accounting identities are maintained in the SEEA in
the following way:
8.5 Environmentally Adjusted National Accounting
175
Table 8.1 SEEA flow and stock accounts with environmental assets
Final
consumption
(households,
Domestic production government)
1 Supply of products
2 Use of products
(intermediate
consumption
[IC])
(i) Other sectors

output
(ii) Environmental
sectors output
(i) Other sectors
output
(ii) Environmental
sectors output
3 Use of fixed capital
Capital formation
Rest of
the
world
Imports
(M)
(i) Other sectors

(i) Gross capital formation Exports
final
of other sectors
(X)
consumption
(GCF1)
(ii) Environmental (ii) Gross capital formasectors final
tion of environmental
consumption
sectors (GCF2)
Capital consumption (CC)
Fixed capital consumption of other

sectors (CC)
4 Value added
NVA O IC CC
(VA/NDP)
NDP NVA
5 Use of natural assets Environmental cost
Environmental
Natural capital
(depletion and
of industries
cost of houseconsumption
degradation and
defensive expenhold (ECh)
EC EC1 + EC2
defensive
diture (EC1)
expenditure)
+ loss of production (EC2)
EnvironmentalEVA NVA EC
ECF (CF CC) EC
adjusted
EDP EVA ECh
indicators
Source: UN (1993, 2000)
(a) Supply use identity:

O M IC C CF X
8:1
where
O is the supply of goods and services produced by different sectors.
M is the supply of goods and services imported by sectors.
IC is the goods and services used in intermediate and C is the final consumption.
CF and X are the capital formation and export.
(b) Value added (environmentally adjusted) identity for different sectors:
EVA O IC CC EC NVA EC
where
8:2
176
EVA is the environmentally adjusted value added of industries.

CC is the fixed capital consumption.
EC is the environmental depletion and degradation costs.
NVA is the net value added of industries.
(c) Domestic-product identity (environmentally adjusted) for the whole economy:
EDP EVA ECh NDP EC C CF CC EC X M
8:3
where
EDP is the environmentally adjusted net domestic product.
ECh is the environmental costs generated by household.
Using the estimates of health hazards, damages to crops, and defensive expenditure as provided in Sect. 8.4.1, 8.4.2 and 8.4.3, we have attempted to estimate
environmentally adjusted national income accounting for the year 20062007
based on the framework of SEEA (Table 8.1). Estimates are shown in Tables 8.2
and 8.3.
Tables 8.2 and Table 8.3 show the environmentally adjusted national income
accounting for the year 20062007 which has been constructed based on the
framework presented in Table 8.1. We have applied two different estimates of
environmentally adjusted national income accounting. These two estimates differ in
terms of (1) loss due to soil erosion, (2) sedimentation as well as soil salinity, and
(3) health cost. Case 1 is based on the estimates accounted in GAISP Monograph
2 and Parikh (2004) and Case 2 by World Bank study (2012). EDP calculation in
detail has been presented in Tables 8.2 and 8.3.
Accounting for the costs of consumption of natural capital obtains not only an
EDP but also an aggregate of environmentally adjusted (net) capital formation
(ECF), Table 8.2.
Here, as evident from Table 8.2 (Case 1), the total domestic production of goods
and services (O), given by the sum of intermediate consumptions (IC), final
consumption (C), capital formation (CF), and net export (exportimport) of all
the sectors (Rs. 790,775,859.3 lakhs) including water resource (Rs. 3,701,692
lakhs), is Rs. 794,477,551.3 (lakhs). EVA derived from NVA by subtracting EC
(Environmental Depletion and Degradation Cost, i.e., Rs. 6,339,366.12 lakhs)
account to Rs. 346,000,481.3 lakhs while EDP which is environmentally adjusted
value added (EVA) household environmental cost (ECh) as depicted in Equation
3 is calculated to be Rs. 339,780,481.3 lakhs. Consequently percentage of loss in
terms of NDP is 3.56 %. Furthermore, ECF (environmentally adjusted capital
formation) is estimated at Rs. 91,936,357.51 lakhs.
Another estimate from World Bank is presented in Table 8.3 (Case 2). The total
domestic production of goods and services remains the same as it is quoted in case
1 at Rs. 794,477,551.3 lakhs. However, EVA differs from case 1 due to the natural
capital consumption (EC) which is estimated to be Rs. 8,725,929.12 lakhs (including soil erosion, soil salinity, and defensive expenditure). In this case, EVA is
Total EC 6,339,366.12
Total EVA 346,000,481.3
Total EDP 339,780,481.3
% loss in terms of NDP
(i) Stands for other sectors
(ii) Stands for water resource

4 Value added (VA/NDP)
GDP at factor cost
394,079,740.79
5 Defensive expenditure
Loss due to soil erosion
Sedimentation
2 Use of products
897,345,362.3
897,345,362.3
3.56
EVA NVA EC 346,000,481

EDP EVA ECh 339,780,481.3
3,025,929.129
2,408,547
904,890
(i) 396,696,119.27
(ii) 3,131,529
(i) 41,739,892.36
NVA or NDP
352,339,847.4
(i) 790,775,859.27
(ii) 3,701,692
Domestic production
Health cost 6,220,000
(i) 269,127,205
(ii) 570,163
Final consumption (households,

government)
Table 8.2 Case 1: Environmentally adjusted national accounting of India for the year 20062007 (in lakh Rs.)
Natural capital
consumption
EC 6,339,366.12
ECF 91,936,357.51
(i) 140,015,616
(ii)
(i) 41,739,892.36
Capital formation
(i) 91,506,422
(ii)
106,569,503
Rest of the
world
8.5 Environmentally Adjusted National Accounting

177

Loss due to soil salinity
Total EC 8,725,929.129
Total EVA 343,613,918.3
Total EDP 338,723,918.3
Health cost
4,890,000
(i) 269,127,205
(ii) 570,163
Natural capital
consumption
EC 8,725,929.12
ECF 89,549,794.5
(i) 140,015,616
(ii)
(i) 41,739,892.36
Capital formation
(i) 91,506,422
(ii)
106,569,503
Rest of the world
3.91
EVA NVA EC 343,613,918.3

EDP EVA ECh 338,723,918.3
4,600,000
1,100,000
Use of fixed capital

Value added (VA/NDP)
GDP at factor cost 394,079,740.79
Defensive expenditure
3
4
(i) 396,696,119.27
(ii) 3,131,529
(i) 41,739,892.36
NVA or NDP
352,339,847.4
3,025,929.129
Use of products
897,345,362.3
(i) 790,775,859.27
(ii) 3,701,692
Domestic production
Supply of products
897,345,362.3
Final consumption
(households,
government)
Table 8.3 Case 2: Environmentally adjusted national accounting of India for the year 20062007 (in lakh Rs.)
178
8.6 The Contribution of the Environment to Economic Performance and Welfare. . .
179
estimated at Rs. 343,613,918.3 lakhs and finally EDP is calculated at

Rs. 338,723,918.3 lakhs resulting in a 3.91 % corresponding percentage loss in
terms of NDP. The environmentally adjusted capital formation (Rs. 89,549,794.5
lakhs) is reduced compared to case 1 due to natural capital consumption.
8.6
The Contribution of the Environment to Economic

Performance and Welfare Generation
The quality of life and welfare of an individual or of a society cannot be precisely

defined, but it is common (at least among social scientists) to associate welfare with
levels of income. Higher-income levels permit higher levels of consumption, and
consumption is a measure though by no means the only determinant of welfare.
It follows that when we assert that a particular environmental change has reduced
welfare it is similar to saying that the income of those affected by the change has
fallen and there has been a reduction in the aggregate income of the society.
Therefore, the need to account for the environment and the economy in an integrated way arises because of the crucial functions of the environment in economic
performance and in the generation of human welfare. The purpose of production is
to meet human wants and to ultimately increase human welfare. While GDP is a
measure of production and a significant contributor to welfare, it is not a welfare
measure itself. One reason is that the goods and services produced may affect
human well-being in many ways that are not reflected in their market value.
The environment is an important contribution to both production and human
welfare, through three broad sets of environmental function such as
1. Resource functions: the provision of resource, including space for human
activity
2. Waste absorption functions: the neutralization, dispersion, or recycling of wastes
from human activity
3. Environmental service functions: the protection of environment from different
deteriorations
These above three sets of functions can each contribute to human well-being in a
variety of ways, including:
(a) Indirectly, via the economic production system
(b) Directly, through the maintenance of human health
Environmental deterioration clearly has an adverse impact on human welfare. In
the context of GDP measurement, national accounts are not meant to measure
welfare. However, they can give insights into welfare generation. For instance,
accounting indicators of the depletion or deterioration of stocks of environmental
assets, in physical or money terms, provide signals about possible losses of our
long-term capability to maintain environmental functions and hence their welfare
180
contributions. Defensive expenditures that increase GDP in terms of additional

investment can be deducted away from GDP to arrive at EDP as this kind of
investment is made to compensate for the welfare loss resulting from environmental
degradation and depletion. As a result, the very same indicators may drive policy
action, resulting in both the betterment of the environment and an increase in
welfare.
Another way of estimating loss in GDP is by calculating the ratio of the sum of
all types of environmental expenditure (Rs. 12,559,366.12 lakhs for Case 1 and
Rs. 13,615,929.13 lakhs for Case 2) to NVA or NDP (Rs. 352,339,847.4 lakhs).
Using this method, the corresponding loss in terms of NDP are around 3.56 % in
Case 1 and 3.91 % in Case 2, respectively, given the EDP estimates of
Rs. 339,780,481.3 lakhs (Case 1) and Rs. 338,723,918.3 lakhs (Case 2). Apart
from welfare loss aspect, one must also consider the positive impact (Schafer and
Stahmer 1989) of incurring defensive expenditure. That is, this kind of investment
made for pollution abatement provides an upsurge in employment generation
through the acceleration principle, thereby raising income and output level.
8.7
Environmentally Adjusted Domestic Product

with Respect to Pollution Control Policies
We have already discussed that gross income or products as conventionally measured do not indicate an economically sustainable level of growth until they have
been pruned for capital consumption. Therefore, considering the costs of depletion
and pollution as consumption of natural capital suggests that they may be
subtracted, along with the consumption of produced capital from NDP and NNI
to arrive at environmentally adjusted NET domestic product (EDP) and national
income. Based on the simulation experiment carried out in the Chap. 7 with
different pollution control policies (in terms of tax), a new set of EDP would
arise as EDP is derived from GDP or NDP. Calculation of these new set of EDP
is illustrated herein.
8.7.1
Simulated EDP
In Chap. 4, we have estimated the water pollution abatement cost including energy,
chemical, labor, and other operation and maintenance costs for the year 20062007.
More specifically, only the industries having a functioning CETP or ETP in 2006
2007 are considered for the estimation. From this estimation process, we observed
even if the plants have installed CETP/ETP, most are not sufficient to achieve and
8.7 Environmentally Adjusted Domestic Product with Respect to Pollution. . .
181
are quite far from the required effluent standards of different water pollution
parameters; towards that end, a revised estimate has been conducted. The plants
are considered to have spent on abatement cost but are not up to the required level,
and thus they have to incur extra cost compared to the current expenditure
(as discussed in scenario 1 in Chap. 7). We have included this cost as pollution
tax in our estimate for the year 20062007.
As a result of the targeted abatement cost, the revised GDP at factor cost will be
Rs. 397,141,628.7 lakhs, an increased from actual GDP at factor cost
Rs. 394,079,740.79 lakhs. Similarly, the revised NDP/NVA will increase from
Rs. 352,339,847.4 lakhs to Rs. 355,401,735.3 lakhs (a hike of 0.87 %). Hence,
the new EDP according to Case 1 will increase marginally to Rs. 342,842,369.2
lakhs (Table 8.4) from the original EDP of Rs. 339,780,489.3 lakhs while for Case
2 the new EDP will be Rs. 341,785,806.2 lakhs (Table 8.5) from the original EDP of
Rs. 338,723,918.3 lakhs. Therefore, for Case 1 the loss in terms of the new NDP is
3.53 % (Table 8.4) and is only marginally less (0.03 %) than that of original NDP
loss of 3.56 % (Table 8.2). Similarly for Case 2, the loss in terms of the new NDP is
3.83 % (Table 8.5) which is 0.079 % less compared to the original NDP loss of
3.91 %. It is observed from this simulation (simulation exercise 1) that NDP loss is
only marginally reduced, that is, 0.02 %, because additional cost (equivalent to tax)
has been imposed on the required plants, and that leads to the increase GDP at factor
cost.
In addition to the above, we have also estimated Green GDP according to a
different pollution control measure (simulation exercise 2). As described in
Chap. 7, due to unavailability of the data on abatement cost, we could not include
all industries under the pollution control policy measure. An attempt to overcome
this problem is by imposing a uniform 0.76 % tax (as a percentage of GDP) for all
industries (detail in Chap. 7). In this section, we have calculated a revised GDP loss
due to the imposition of a uniform pollution tax as presented in Case 1 (Table 8.6)
and Case 2 (Table 8.7). Again, Case 1 is based on the estimates accounted in GAISP
Monograph 2 and Parikh (2004) and Case 2 by World Bank study (2012). The loss
in terms of NDP will be 3.50 % according to Case 1, while it is 3.79 % for Case
2 which is marginally low compared to actual GDP loss as quoted in Table 8.2
(3.56 %) and Table 8.3 (3.91 %), respectively.
The current exercise only covers the water-resource-related expenditure which
should be included under the national income accounting framework. There are
several other environmental expenditures such as biodiversity, flood damage,
forest, etc., that are not accounted in this study. From this analysis, it can be
concluded that along with the defensive expenditure, pollution control policies
also affect the whole process of EDP calculation as percentage loss in terms of
NDP declines with the adoption of pollution abatement measures.

Sedimentation
Total EC 6,339,366.12
Total EVA 349,062,369.2
Total EDP 342,842,369.2
Changes from actual green
GDP loss estimate
3
4
Use of products
897,345,362.3
(i) 790,775,859.27
(ii) 3,701,692
Health cost
6,220,000
(i) 269,127,205
(ii) 570,163
Natural capital consumption

EC 6,339,366.12
ECF 91,936,357.5
(i) 140,015,616
(ii)
(i) 41,739,892.36
Capital formation
(i) 91,506,422
(ii)
106,569,503
Rest of the
world
3.53
0.03
2,408,547
90,489
EVA NVA EC 349,062,369.2
EDP EVA ECh 342,842,369.2
(i) 396,696,119.27
(ii) 3,131,529
(i) 41,739,892.36
NVA or NDP
GDP at factor cost 397,141,628.7 355,401,735.3
3,025,929.129
Supply of products
897,345,362.3
Domestic production
Final consumption
(households,
government)
Table 8.4 Simulation exercise 1 (Case 1): Environmentally adjusted national accounting of India for the year 20062007 (in lakh Rs.)
182
Loss due to soil Erosion

Total EC 8,725,929.129
Total EVA 346,675,806.2
Total EDP 341,785,806.2
GDP loss estimate
3.831
0.079
EVA NVA EC 346,675,806.2

EDP EVA ECh 341,785,806.2
4,600,000
1,100,000

Defensive Expenditure
3
4
(i) 396,696,119.27
(ii)3,131,529
(i) 41,739,892.36
NVA or NDP
355,401,735.3
3,025,929.129
Use of products
897,345,362.3
(i) 790,775,859.27
(ii) 3,701,692
Supply of products
897,345,362.3
Domestic production
Health cost
4,890,000
(i) 269,127,205
(ii) 570,163
Final consumption
(households,
government)
Natural capital
consumption
EC 8,725,929.12
ECF 89,549,794.5
(i) 140,015,616
(ii)
(i) 41,739,892.36
Capital formation
(i) 91,506,422
(ii)
106,569,503
Rest of the
world

183

Sedimentation
Total EC 6,339,366.12
Revised total EVA 352,029,478.9
Total EDP 345,809,478.9
GDP loss estimate
Health cost
6,220,000
(i) 269,127,205
(ii) 570,163

EC 6,339,366.12
ECF 91,936,357.5
(i) 140,015,616
(ii)
(i) 41,739,892.36
Capital formation
(i) 91,506,422
(ii)
106,569,503
Rest of the
world
3.505
0.059
EVA NVA EC 352,029,478.9

EDP EVA ECh 345,809,478.9
2,408,547
90,489

3
4
(i) 396,696,119.27
(ii) 3,131,529
(i) 41,739,892.36
NVA or NDP
358,368,845.1
3,025,929.129
Use of products
897,345,362.3
(i) 790,775,859.27
(ii) 3,701,692
Supply of products
897,345,362.3
Domestic production
Final consumption
(households,
government)
184

4 Value added (VA/NDP)
5 Defensive expenditure
Total EC 8,725,929.129
Total EVA 349,642,915.9
Total EDP 344,752,915.9
Changes from actual green GDP
loss estimate
2 Use of products
897,345,362.3
897,345,362.3
Final consumption (households,

government)
3.791
0.119
(i) 396,696,119.27
(i) 269,127,205
(ii) 3,131,529
(ii) 570,163
(i) 41,739,892.36
NVA or NDP
358,368,845.1
3,025,929.129
Health cost 4,890,000
4,600,000
1,100,000
EVA 349,642,915.9
EDP 344,752,915.9
(i) 790,775,859.27
(ii) 3,701,692
Domestic production

EC 8,725,929.12
ECF 89,549,794.5
(i) 140,015,616
(ii)
(i) 41,739,892.36
Capital formation
(i) 91,506,422
(ii)
106,569,503
Rest of the
world
Table 8.7 Simulation exercise 2 (Case 2): Simulated environmentally adjusted national accounting of India for the year 20062007 (in lakh Rs.)

185
186
References
Alfsen KH (1994) Natural resource accounting and analysis in Norway. Documents 94/2 Statistics
Norway Research Department, Oslo
Bartelmus P (1999) Greening the national accounts: approach and policy use. DESA Discussion
paper no. 3. Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York
Bartelmus P, van Tongeren J (1994) Environmental accounting: an operational perspective.
Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis Working Paper series
no.1. United Nations, New York
Centre for Science and Environment (1985) The state of Indias environment-the second citizens
report. Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi
Costanza R, dArge R, de Groot R, Farberk S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, ONeill
RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Suttonkk P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the worlds
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253260
Daly H (2005) Economics in a full world. Scientific American 293(3): 100107
Dasgupta P (1995) Optimal development and the idea of net national product. In: Goldin I, Winters
A (eds) The economics of sustainable development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Green GDP (2009) India to release green GDP data from 2015. Retrieved from http://www.
financialexpress.com/news/india-to-release-green-gdp-data-from-2015/544338
Gundimeda H, Sanyal S, Sinha R, Sukhdeva P (2005) Monograph 2 Green accounting for Indian
States Project: estimating the value of agricultural cropland and pastureland in India. TERI
Press, New Delhi. Retrieved from http://www.gistadvisory.com/pdfs/GAISP_Monograph_2_
Final.pdf
States and Union Territories Project: the value of biodiversity in Indias forests. TERI Press,
New Delhi. Retrieved from http://www.gistindia.org
Gundimeda H, Sukhdeva P, Sinha RK, Sanyal S (2007) Natural resource accounting for Indian
states illustrating the case of forest resources. Ecol Econ 61:635649
IGIDR (1992) Natural resource accounting: a framework for India. Indira Gandhi Institute of
Development Research, Bombay
Kumar P, Sanyal S, Sinha R, Sukhdeva P (2007) Green accounting for Indian States Project
Monograph 8: accounting for freshwater quality in India. TERI Press, New Delhi
Maler KG (1991) National accounts and environmental resources. Environ Resour Econ 1(1):116
NBSSLUP (1990) Draft report on status of land degradation in India. National Bureau of Soil
Survey and Land Use Planning. Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Government of
India
Parikh J (2004) Environmentally sustainable development in India. Retrieved 22 August 2008,
from http://scid.stanford.edu/events/India2004/JParikh.pdf
Perman R, Ma Y, McGilvray J (1996) Natural resource and environmental economics. Longman
Publishing, London
Reddy VR (2003) Land degradation in India extent, costs and determinants. Econ Polit Wkly 28
(44):47004713
Repetto R, McGrath W, Wells M, Beer C, Rossini F (1989) Wasting assets: natural resources in the
national income accounts. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC
Schafer D, Stahmer C (1989) Inputoutput model for the analysis of environmental protection
activities. Econ Syst Res 1(2):203228
UN (1993) Integrated environmental and economic accounting. United Nations, New York
UN (2000) Handbook of national accounting series F, no. 78 on integrated environmental and
economic accounting: an operational manual. United Nations, New York
World Bank (2007) Cost of pollution in China: economic estimates of physical damages. World
World Bank (2012) An analysis of physical and monetary losses of environmental health and
natural resources in India by Mani M, A. Markandya, A. Sagar and E. Strukova, The World
References
187
Bank, South Asia Region, Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change, October 2012
Policy Research working paper-WPS6219. The World Bank, Washington, DC
Wu J, Wu T (2010) Green GDP. In Berkshire encyclopedia of sustainability, vol. II. The business
of sustainability. Berkshire Publishing, Great Barrington, pp 248250. Retrieved from http://
leml.asu.edu/jingle/Web_Pages/Wu_Pubs/PDF_Files/Wu+Wu-2010-GreenGDP.pdf
Chapter 9
Review of the Case Studies
9.1
Introduction
Industrialization contributes to national economic growth; however, often it exerts

considerable pressure upon natural resources of an economy. In addition, the waste
generated by the industries is a major environmental concern and the disposal of
effluents without appropriate treatment could affect adversely in the long run,
especially health, local vegetation, and aquatic life. Thus, it is necessary for highly
polluting industries to adopt a suitable waste treatment process for the clean
disposal of wastewater (Biogas Forum 1999).
As discussed in Chap. 4, water quality and pollution levels are generally
measured in terms of concentration or load the rate of occurrence of a substance
in water. BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) measures the strength of organic
waste in terms of the amount of oxygen consumed (by the microorganism in water)
in breaking it down. This is a standard water quality parameter for the presence of
biodegradable organic pollutants. Moreover, a number of physical and chemical
parameters (which define the water quality) such as pH, total suspended solids
(TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), and inorganic trace elements, also need to be
monitored for proper assessment of water quality. Hence, it will be more convenient
to integrate the data pool in some way to produce a single number to reflect the
water quality status. Water quality index (WQI) measures this.
Though pollution is unavoidable as a result of industrialization, efforts should be
made to minimize it. Otherwise, it may jeopardize the development that we are
hoping to achieve. The Government of India is much concerned with the present
state of water pollution and has taken several pollution control measures to check
the increasing environmental degradation due to water pollution. However, in spite
of these measures, the problem still remains. Whether it is at all useful for the
industry to adopt the preventive measure by setting up effluent treatment plant or
common effluent treatment plant is a matter of policy decision. To address these
issues, an attempt should be taken to make a detailed study of pollution generation
abatement costs and other related aspects of different industrial units of India. From
189
190
9 Review of the Case Studies
the previous chapters, we have knowledge on different types of water pollution

generation across sectors in India. The overview of estimates identifies some key
sectors generating huge amount of water pollution such as group of textiles, set of
chemicals, livestock, milk and milk products, leather, rubber, etc. To get a complete
picture of these industrial sectors, a thorough investigation is needed. Towards that
direction, a review of different case studies is presented in this chapter. Here we
cover in detail studies conducted by the authors for textile, pharmaceutical, and
paint industry in West Bengal. In addition, other case studies of the different parts
of India have also been discussed.
9.2
Case Studies of West Bengal1
Water pollution is mainly generated from the industries like textile, dye and
dyestuff, drugs and pharmaceuticals, and more specifically paints. Thus, the study
covers three different types of industries and tries to look at the variations of treated
and untreated wastewater of each. It estimates the total amount of different types of
water pollution generated in different industrial units of West Bengal, evaluates the
water quality status of the wastewater generated by different industries of West
Bengal using the water quality Index, calculates the abatement costs of selected
industries of West Bengal, and evaluates the extent of success of investment for
setting up effluent treatment plants of different industrial units of West Bengal with
the help of benefitcost analysis.
9.2.1
A Brief Discussion of the Industries Surveyed
In this section, an attempt has been undertaken to introduce the different industries
considered for the study. For the work, a detailed survey has been made of the
following five different industries in West Bengal, India. They are: (1) Eastern
Spinning Mills & India Ltd., (2) Samson Processing Industries, (3) Jenson &
Nicholson (I) Ltd., (4) Infar India Pharmaceuticals, and (5) East India
Pharmaceuticals.
A brief description of these industries is presented in Table 9.1.
Let us now briefly discuss the detail of these five industries, wastewater generation, and waste management practices.
These case studies draw heavily from Chakraborty et al. (2008).
Location
Barashat,
24 Parganas (N)
Ganganagar,
24 Parganas (N)
Gorifa, Naihati,
24 Parganas (N)
Ganganagar,
24 Parganas (N)
Paturia, Durgapur
5. East India
Pharmaceuticals
Name of the industry

1. Eastern Spinning
Mills
2. Samson Processing
Industries
3. Jenson and Nichol
(I) Ltd.
4. Infar India Ltd.
Type
Medium size textile
industry
Small-scale textiledyeing industry
Large size paints
industry
Large size pharmaceutical industry
Medium size pharmaceutical
industry
Table 9.1 A brief description about five industries in West Bengal
19951996
19881989
1926
1925
19911992
19981999
1976
1979
Date of establishment of
effluent treatment plant
19931994
Date of
establishment
1963
Quinodochly (IP)
Colored and processed hosiery cotton

fabrics
Varieties of paints red oxides primer,
cement primer, plastic emulsion paint
Diosynth
Type of product
Synthetic blended yarn
9.2 Case Studies of West Bengal

191
192
9.2.1.1
Textile Industry (Eastern Spinning Mills & India Ltd.)
The Eastern Spinning Mills operates 24 h a day and 355 days a year. It employed
over 830 persons (including both workers and management persons). Average
production was about 5,148 Mt/year (19941995) with 7,213.6 Mt/year (1999
2000) installed capacity. This industry used 5,049.52 Mt/year (19992000) raw
materials and 2,306.79 Mt/year (19992000) process chemical for yearn production. Eastern Spinning Mills uses two types of fuel, coal and oil, and their consumption quantity were 5,049.7 Mt/year (19992000) and 2,130 kL/year (1999
2000), respectively. To produce yearn, this industry consumed 53,250 kL/annum
(19992000) tube well water.
Wastewater Generation
This industry has two units a spinning unit and a dye house unit. Only the dye
house unit generates wastewater, and this quantity was 145 kL/day (2000). This
wastewater contained high BOD and COD levels. Table 9.2 gives a detailed
description about the characteristics of this wastewater along with permissible
limit of discharge, prescribed by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board
(WBPCB).
Waste Management Practices

To meet the permissible limit of the WBPCB, this industry installed an effluent
treatment plant (ETP) in 19931994 to treat all wastewater before discharge to the
main sewerage system. About 210 kL of wastewater was treated every day.
Table 9.3 gives a detailed description about the characteristics of this wastewater
along with permissible limit of discharge. Solid wastes generated include only
sludge from the ETP, and this quantity was 15.8 Mt/annum (2000). Sludge from
the ETP is dumped into a sludge disposal tank inside the plant.
9.2.1.2
Textile-Dyeing Industry (Samson Processing Industries)
This textile-dyeing industry operates 24 h a day and 280 days a year. It employed
over 110 persons/day (including both workers and management persons). There are
basically three shifts for the workers, and one general shift for management and
other persons. Total production of all the products was approximately 841.5 Mt/
annum with 935 Mt/annum installed capacity. This industry uses a number of raw
materials and process chemicals for production, and their total consumption quantity was 1,138 Mt/annum and 540.4 Mt/year, respectively. This industry uses coal
193
Table 9.2 Characteristics of

untreated water of Eastern
Spinning Mills & India Ltd
(2000)
Parameters
Concentration
COD (mg/L)
1,350
pH
8.5
BOD (mg/L)
310
Temperature C
5055
TDS (mg/L)
1,380
Permissible limit
250
5.59.0
30
Room temperature
2,100

treated water of Eastern
Spinning Mills & India Ltd
(2000)
Parameters
Concentration
COD (mg/L)
209.4
pH
7.57
BOD (mg/L)
120
Temperature C
33
TSS (mg/L)
42
Permissible limit
250
5.59.0
30
Room temperature
100
as fuel, and its consumption quantity was 1,960 kL/annum. To produce products,
this industry consumed 14,000 kL/annum water from deep tube well.
The plant generated 50 kL/day wastewater. This wastewater contains high BOD
and COD levels. Table 9.4 presents a detailed description about the characteristics
of this wastewater along with permissible limit of discharge prescribed by the
WBPCB.

This industry built an effluent treatment plant (ETP) in 19981999 to treat all
wastewater before final discharge to the main sewerage system. Solid waste generated in the industry consists of coal brunt ash, and this quantity was 5 t/month
(approx.) (1999). Table 9.5 describes the characteristics of the treated wastewater
along with the permissible limit of discharge. Solid waste is collected manually and
use for low land filling.
9.2.1.3
Paints Industry (Jenson & Nicholson (I) Ltd.)
The paints industry operates 24 h a day and 300 days a year. It employed over
383 persons/day (including both workers and management persons). There are basically three shifts for the workers and one general shift for management and other
persons. Total production of all the products was approximately 841.5 Mt/annum
194

untreated wastewater of
Samson Processing Industries
(19992000)
Parameters
Concentration
COD (mg/L)
Oil and grease (mg/L)
Cr6 (mg/L)
pH
BOD (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
Permissible limit
250
10
0.1
6.08.5
150
100

treated wastewater of Samson
Processing Industries (1999
2000)
Parameters
Permissible limit
Concentration
COD (mg/L)
276.6
3.8
Cr6 (mg/L)
BDL
pH
8.13
BOD (mg/L)
82.5
TDS (mg/L)
78.0
250
10
0.1
6.08.5
150
100
with 935 Mt/annum installed capacity. This industry uses a number of raw materials
and process chemicals for production, and their total consumption quantity was
1,138 Mt/annum and 540.4 Mt/annum, respectively. This industry uses coal as fuel
and its consumption quantity was 1,960 kL/annum. To produce products, this industry
consumed 14,000 kL/annum water from deep tube well.
The industry generated 680 kL/day wastewater. This wastewater contains high
BOD and COD levels. Table 9.6 gives a detailed description of this wastewater
composite along with the permissible limit prescribed by the WBPCB.

Following the instruction of the WBPCB to meet its permissible limit, this industry
built an effluent treatment plant (ETP) in 19951996 to treat all wastewater before
final discharge to the main sewerage system. The ETP has been designed to treat
240 kL of contaminated water and 440 kL of cooling water per day. Table 9.7
reports the treated wastewater along with the permissible limit prescribed by the
WBPCB. Solid waste generated in the industry consists of rejected materials and
sludge from ETP, and this quantity was 11.9 Mt/annum (approx.) (19992000).
Solid waste is collected manually. It is stored in polythene bags (2025 kg) and
dumped into the storage tank inside the industry.
195
Table 9.6 Characteristics of untreated wastewater of Jenson & Nicholson (I) Ltd (1999)
Parameters
COD (mg/L)
Phenolic compounds (mg/L)
Cr6 (mg/L)
pH
BOD (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
a
Below detection limit
Measured values (mean value)

225.51
BDL
3.48
BDLa
6.91
69.16
214.5
Permissible limit
250
1.0
10
0.1
6.08.5
50
100
Table 9.7 Characteristics of treated wastewater of Jenson & Nicholson (I) Ltd (1999)
Parameters
COD (mg/L)
Cr6 (mg/L)
pH
BOD (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
9.2.1.4
Measured values (mean value)

26.55
BDL
BDL
BDL
7.15
4.66
20
Permissible limit
250
1.0
10
0.1
6.08.5
50
100
Pharmaceutical Industry (Infar (India) Ltd.)
The pharmaceutical industry operates 24 h a day and 300 days a year. It employed
over 148 persons per day (including both workers and management persons). There
are basically three shifts for the workers and one general shift for management and
other persons. Presently Infar (I) Ltd. mainly produces DIOSYNTH. Total production of all the products was approximately 3.31 Mt/annum with installed
capacity of 4.5 Mt/annum. This industry uses different types of raw materials for
production, and their total consumption quantity was 6.706 Mt/annum. Infar (I) Ltd.
uses oil as fuel, and its consumption quantity was 365 kL/annum. To produce
products, this industry consumes 207,268 kL/annum water from deep tube well.
This industry generated 690.9 kL/day wastewater (2000). This wastewater contains
high BOD and COD levels. Table 9.8 gives a detailed description of this wastewater
composite compared to permissible limits of the WBPCB.
196

untreated wastewater of
Pharmaceutical Industry
(Infar India Ltd.) (1999
2000)
Parameters
Measured values
COD (mg/L)
8001,000
Nil
Cr6 (mg/L)
pH
6.08.5
BOD (mg/L)
400550
TSS (mg/L)
<100
Permissible limit
250
0.1
6.08.5
30
100

treated wastewater of
(Infar India Ltd.) (1999
2000)
Parameters
Measured values
COD (mg/L)
<200
Nil
Cr6 (mg/L)
pH
6.08.5
BOD (mg/L)
<20
<5
TSS (mg/L)
<60
Permissible limit
250
0.1
6.08.5
30
10
100

This industry installed an effluent treatment plant (ETP) in 19981999 to treat all
wastewater before final discharge to the main sewerage system. Table 9.9 shows the
characteristics of the treated wastewater along with the permissible limit of discharge. Solid waste generated in the industry consists of requested materials and
sludge from ETP. The quantities amounted to 52.8 Mt/annum (2000). Solid waste is
collected from reactor and filter. It is stored in the backyard.
9.2.1.5
Pharmaceutical Industry (East India Pharmaceuticals)
The East India Pharmaceuticals industry operates 24 h a day, 300 days a year. It
employed over 142 persons (including both workers and management persons).
There are basically three shifts for the workers and one general shift is there for
management persons. The main production of EIPW Ltd. is Quinodochlor (IP).
Average production was around 277.89 Mt/annum. The industry uses a number of
raw materials and process chemicals for production and their total consumption
quantity were 303.03 Mt/annum (raw material) and 642.04 Mt/annum (process
chem.), respectively. It uses steam coal and boiler compound as fuel and their
consumption quantities were 460 Mt/year and 0.21 kL/year, respectively. To
produce drug, this industry consumed 103,512 kL/annum water from Durgapur
Project Ltd.
197
Table 9.10 Characteristics of untreated wastewater of East India Pharmaceuticals (1999)

Parameters
1. COD (mg/L)
2. Phenolic compounds (mg/L)
3. pH
4. Oil and grease (mg/L)
5. BOD (mg/L)
6. TSS (mg/L)
Concentration
538.2
12.4
9.4
4.8
80.8
160.4
Permissible limit
250
1.0
6.58.5
10
100
100
This industry generated 302 kL/day industrial wastewater and 11 kL/day domestic
wastewater, that is, total 313 kL/day liquid waste (1999). This wastewater contains
high BOD and COD levels. A detailed description of this wastewater composite
compared to permissible limit of the WBPCB is presented in Table 9.10.

The industry built an effluent treatment plant (ETP) in 19911992 for the treatment
of all wastewater before final discharge to the main sewerage system. Table 9.11
presents a detailed description of the treated wastewater along with the permissible
limit of WBPCB. Solid waste generated in the industry consists of rejected materials like hand gloves, gum boot, paper containers, etc., and this quantity was about
200 kg/month. Other solid wastes are sludge from different units, ETP, etc., and this
quantity was 5,000 kg/month (1999). The total amount of solid waste was
51.480 Mt/annum. Solid waste is collected manually and deposited into the storage
tank inside the industry.
9.2.2
Determination of Water Quality Indices (WQI)

of Wastewater of Five Industries in West Bengal
As it is known, the availability of water in terms of both quantity and quality is

essential to the very existence of mankind. Earlier, people used to recognize the
importance of water from quantity viewpoint. Recognition of the importance of
water quality developed more slowly only in recent years. It will be more convenient to integrate the data pool in some way to produce a single number to reflect the
water quality status. Water quality index (WQI) achieves that result. The WQI
considered in our case is of the form
198
Table 9.11 Characteristics of treated wastewater of East India Pharmaceuticals (1999)

Parameters
1. COD (mg/L)
2. Phenolic compounds (mg/L)
3. pH
4. Oil and grease (mg/L)
5. BOD (mg/L)
6. TSS (mg/L)
Concentration
34.7
0.
6.7
Trace
8.3
10.6
WQI
n
X
Permissible limit
250
1 1.0
6.58.5
10
100
100
wi qi
i1
where
qi the quality of ith parameter a number between 0 and 100
wj the weight of ith parameter a number between 0 and 1
n the total number of parameters
The development and formulation of WQI involves four stages:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Parameter selection
Transformation of parameter estimates to a common scale
Assignment of weights to all the parameters
Aggregation of individual parameter scores to produce a final index score
In developing water quality indices, experts (in the concerned field of water quality
management) differ from each other. Here, we shall consider the systematic opinion
research technique, as attempted by Robert M. Brown (as mentioned by Abbasi
1999). It has been utilized to incorporate the opinion of a large and diverse panel of
experts. They were asked to rank the water quality parameters according to their
significance as contributor to overall quality. The rating was done on a scale of
1 (highest) to 5 (lowest), based on the polluting effect of the parameter relative to
others. Each parameter represents only a part of the overall quality; thus, parameters of even lower importance cannot be discarded since they are still part of the
overall quality.
In the next step, arithmetic mean was calculated on the rating scores by the
experts to arrive at the mean of all significance rating for each individual
parameter. To convert the mean rating into weights, a temporary weight of 1.0
was assigned to the parameter which received the highest significance rating. All
other temporary weights were obtained by dividing the corresponding individual
mean rating of the parameters by the highest rating. Each temporary weight was
then divided by the sum of all temporary weights to deduce the final weight (wi),
which must sum up to one, that is, wj 1. A total weight of l is thus distributed
among the parameters to reflect the relative importance of the parameters. The

Table 9.12 Water resources
classification
WQI value
Class
63100
A
5063
B
3850
C
Below 38
D, E
199
Description
Good to excellent
Medium to good
Bad
Bad to very bad
weight hence assigned to a parameter is an indication of the degree to which water

quality may be affected by that particular parameter.
The following step to the above is the transformation of parameter to a common
quality scale referred commonly as individual quality rating score (qi). The quality
rating score is assigned to a particular parameter depending on an individual
judgment or a consensus opinion of experts based on the water quality standards.
It reflects the magnitude of violation of set of standards. The quality rating is done
on a scale of 0 (highest polluting) to 100 (lowest polluting).
Finally, an overall quality rating is derived, simply by multiplying the final
weights (wi) of each individual parameter with the corresponding quality rating (qi).
The sum of (wi qi) gives the required single number WQI.
Now, to evaluate the water quality status of wastewater, water resource has been
classified in the following way using WQI value so obtained.
The last classification of Table 9.12 (i.e., D and E Bad to Very bad) has been
decomposed to class D with WQI values above 20 and described as Bad and those
below 20 as Very bad under class E.
Taking these steps as the basis, the data collected by the authors have been
analyzed for assessing the water quality status of both untreated and treated
wastewater generated by the different industries in West Bengal. Details of which
are presented in Tables 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, and 9.19.
The calculated values of WQI of untreated and treated wastewater for the
aforesaid industries are presented in Table 9.20. It is evident from Table 9.20 that
the water quality of treated wastewater of each industry is good.
This means that the ETP of each industry is effective in keeping the quality of
wastewater within the permissible limit of discharge. It also means that there is
environmental gain in the installation of ETP. Eastern Spinning Mills and East
India Pharmaceuticals have gained highest environmental improvement due to the
installation of ETP, because they are converting the wastewater of Class D to the
wastewater of Class A by their ETP.
Measured
Permissible
Mean of
Parameter
value
limit
significance
COD (mg/L)
1,350
250
1.4
pH
8.5
5.59.0
2.1
BOD (mg/L)
310
30
2.3
Temperature C 5055
Room temperature 2.4
TDS (mg/L)
1,380
2,100
2.4
WQI (wi qi) 33.49 (calculated from the last column)
Wastewater of class D (see tables 9.12 and 9.20 for clarification)
Bad quality wastewater (see tables 9.12 and 9.20 for clarification)
Temporary
weights
1
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
Final weights
(wi)
0.29
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.17
Table 9.13 Determination of WQI of untreated wastewater, Eastern Spinning Mills & India Ltd.
Individual quality rating
(qi)
5
82
5
7
80
Overall quality rating

(wi qi)
1.45
16.4
0.85
1.19
13.6
200
Measured
Mean of
Parameter
value
Permissible limit
significance
COD (mg/L)
209.4
250
1.4
pH
7.57
5.59.0
2.1
Oil and grease
4
10
2.1
(mg/L)
BOD (mg/L)
120
30
2.3
Temperature C
33
Room temperature
2.4
TDS (mg/L)
42
100
2.9
Wastewater of class A (see tables 9.12 and 9.20 for clarification)
Good quality wastewater (see tables 9.12 and 9.20 for clarification)
Final weights
(wi)
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.12
Temporary
weights
1
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
Table 9.14 Determination of WQI of treated wastewater, Eastern Spinning Mills & India Ltd.
10
85
92
Individual quality
rating (qi)
90
92
92
1.5
12.7
11.04

(wi qi)
21.6
15.6
15.6

201
Permissible
limit
250
10
Mean of
significance
1.4
2.1
Parameter
COD (mg/L)
Oil and grease
(mg/L)
Cr+6 (mg/L)
BDL
0.1
2.1
pH
8.13
6.08.5
2.1
BOD (mg/L)
82.5
150
2.3
TSS (mg/L)
78.0
100
2.9
Measured
value
276.64
3.8
Final weights
(wi)
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.14
0.12
Temporary
weights
1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
Table 9.15 Determination of WQI of treated wastewater, Samson Processing Industries
92
92
94
94
Individual
quality
rating (qi)
60
90
5.64
15.64
13.16
11.28
Overall quality
rating (wi qi)
14.4
15.3
202
Measured
Permissible
Mean of
Parameter
value
limit
significance
COD (mg/L)
8001,000
250
1.4
Cr+6 (mg/L)
Nil
0.1
2.1
pH
6.08.5
6.08.5
2.1
BOD (mg/L)
400550
30
2.3
TSS (mg/L)
<100
100
2.9
WQI (wi qi) 52.16t (calculated from the last column)
Wastewater of class B (see tables 9.12 and 9.20 for clarification)
Temporary
weights
1
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
Final weights
(wi)
0.27
0.2
0.2
0.17
0.14
Table 9.16 Determination of WQI of untreated wastewater, Infar India Pharmaceuticals

Individual quality rating
(qi)
5
92
92
5
94

(wi qi)
1.35
18.4
18.4
0.85
13.16

203
Parameter
COD (mg/L)
Measured
Permissible
Mean of
value
limit
significance
<200
250
1.4
<5
10
2.1
Cr+6 (mg/L)
Nil
0.1
2.1
pH
6.58.5
6.08.5
2.1
BOD (mg/L)
<20
30
2.3
TSS (mg/L)
<60
100
2.9
Temporary
weights
1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
Table 9.17 Determination of WQI of treated wastewater, Infar India Pharmaceuticals

Final weights
(wi)
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.14
0.12
Individual quality
rating (qi)
92
90
92
92
94
94

(wi qi)
22.08
15.3
15.64
15.64
13.16
11.28
204
Measured
Permissible
Parameter
value
limit
COD (mg/L)
538
250
12.4
1.0
4.8
10
pH
9.4
6.08.5
BOD (mg/L)
80.8
100
TSS (mg/L)
160.4
100
Wastewater of class D (see tables 9.12 and 9.20 for clarification)
Bad quality wastewater (see tables 9.12 and 9.20 for clarification)
Mean of
significance
1.4
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.9
Temporary
weights
1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
Table 9.18 Determination of WQI of untreated wastewater, East India Pharmaceuticals

Final
weights (wi)
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.14
0.12
Individual quality
rating (qi)
10
2
92
10
92
20
Overall quality
rating (wi qi)
2.4
0.34
15.64
1.7
12.88
2.4

205
Measured
Permissible
Mean of
Parameter
value
limit
significance
COD (mg/L)
34.7
250
1.4
Phenolic compounds (mg/L) 0.1
1.0
2.0
Trace
10
2.1
pH
6.7
6.08.5
2.1
BOD (mg/L)
8.3
100
2.3
TSS (mg/L)
10.6
100
2.9
Temporary
weights
1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
Table 9.19 Determination of WQI of treated wastewater, East India Pharmaceuticals

Final weights
(wi)
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.14
0.12
Individual quality
rating (qi)
92
92
94
92
98
94

(wi qi)
22.08
15.6
15.98
15.60
13.72
11.28
206
207
Table 9.20 Calculated values of WQI of treated and untreated wastewater of five industries of
West Bengal
Name of the industry
1. Eastern Spinning Mills & India Ltd.
2. Samson Processing Industries
3. Jenson & Nicholson (I) Ltd.
4. Infar India Pharmaceuticals
5. East India Pharmaceuticals
9.2.3
WQI values of wastewater
Class of wastewater
Untreated
33.49
73.50
52.16
35.36
Untreated
Class D
Class A
Class B
Class D
Treated
78.0
85.42
90.09
93.10
94.28
Treated
Class A
Class A
Class A
Class A
Class A
Evaluation of Setting Up of Effluent Treatment Plant

in Five Industries
As mentioned, following the instruction directed by the West Bengal Pollution

Control Board, the different industries have set up effluent treatment plant to
control water pollution. The five industries under study have also set an ETP. In
this section, we will evaluate the extent of the success of setting up these plants
using a well-known benefitcost approach.
9.2.3.1
BenefitCost Analysis of Textile-Dyeing Industry (Samson

Processing Industries)
Cost Analysis
Considering the data that has been obtained from the industry over 20 years, the
cost has been calculated for the lifetime of the ETP. In calculating the total cost,
both construction and operation cost aspects of the pollution abatement measures
have been considered.
Construction Cost
In the evaluation of construction cost, the total investment made by the organization
for purchasing and installing the equipment for the ETP has been calculated. It has
been observed that the organization has made an investment of Rs. 1,159,724 in the
year 19981999. This was the construction cost of the treatment plant for the first
year, which is represented in detail in Table 9.21. It has been observed that the
organization has not been taken any loan for the construction of ETP.
Operation Cost
The inputs required for the operation and maintenance of ETP are chemicals,
energy, labors, water, etc. This industry has supplied the operational cost data for
208
Table 9.21 Construction

cost of Samson Processing
Industries (19981999)
Item
1. Equipment cost
2. Transport charge
3. Labor charge
4. Material charge
5. Consultant
Cost (Rs.)
150,000
10,540
218,292
700,892
80,000
Table 9.22 Operation cost of

Samson Processing Industries
(20002001)
Item
3. Maintenance cost
Cost (Rs.)
100,800
122,452
18,400
151,200
the year 20002001 which is given in Table 9.22. To obtain the entire operational
cost structure throughout the lifetime of the ETP, different annual inflation rates,
taken from the Economic Survey published by the Government of India, have been
used for each operational item. The average inflation rate has been used for the rest
of the lifetime of ETP. The operational cost for each item was then calculated
through the lifetime of ETP, and the sum of the different items for each year gives
the total operation cost for that particular year.
Total annual cost is arrived at by adding total construction cost to the total
operational cost. The present value of total cost in the future is calculated by
discounting the total cost over lifetime of ETP using a 10 % discount rate, which
is the market rate of interest. For this calculation, the following formula has been
used:
Pn
Cn
1 r n
9:1
where
Pn is the discounted cost of nth year.
Cn is the total cost of nth year.
n is the number of year.
r is the rate of discount.
The cumulative total cost has also been calculated.
Benefit Analysis
The estimation of the benefit was based on the assumption that a certain percentage
of the total revenue (TR) has to be deposited to the WBPCB as a penalty if the
209
Table 9.23 Benefitcost ratio of Samson Processing Industries for different percentage values
Values guessed (%)
discounted benefit
0.1
257,100
0.25
642,740
0.5
1,285,480
1
2,570,960
2
5,141,920
3
7,712,866
4
10,283,820
4.5
11,569,300
discounted cost
7,191,287
7,191,287
7,191,287
7,191,287
7,191,287
7,191,287
7,191,287
7,191,287
Values of BCR
0.04
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.7
1.1
1.4
1.6
industry did not install ETP. The details of the total revenue that has been supplied
by the industry are for the year 19981999. In this year, the industry installed an
ETP and that the total revenue for the year of installation of ETP was
Rs. 12,854,776. To estimate the possible percentage of the total revenue (of the
year of installation of ETP) that has to be deposited as a penalty, different percentages of total revenue (of the year of installation of ETP) are used. It is assumed that
these range from 0.1 % upwards. The values of different percentages assumed for
the fine, along with the rupees amount, are given in Table 9.23. From here, the
minimum percentage value which gives the IRR (internal rate of return) value is
selected as the percentage value of fine. This amount is the benefit per year
throughout the lifetime of the ETP. It has been seen that a minimum penalty of
3 % of the total revenue (of the year of installation of ETP) gives the IRR value. The
present value of the benefit is then calculated over lifetime of ETP, and for this
calculation, the following equation has been used:
Benefit deposited amountx 1 r n
where n is the number of year and r is the rate of interest which is 10 %.
Results of BenefitCost Analysis

Based on the processed cost and benefit data, the payback period, benefitcost ratio,
and internal rate of return have been calculated.
The benefitcost ratio (BCR) is obtained by dividing the (discounted benefit) to
the (discounted cost) throughout the lifetime of ETP. The obtained values of the
BCR for different percentage values, which have been assumed as the percentage
value of fine, are given in Table 9.23. The payback period (PBR) and internal rate
of return (IRR) have been found to be in the ninth year and 16 %, respectively.
210

cost of Jenson and Nicholson
(I) Ltd. (19951996)
9.2.3.2
Item
1. Equipment cost
2. Cost for the construction of sludge tank
3. Transport charge
4. Labor charge
5. Material charge
7. Building cost
8. Consultant
9. Others and manpower
Cost (Rs.)
937,256
50,000
40,000
772,800
22,000
1,159,200
297,000
110,000
80,000
BenefitCost Analysis of Paints Industry (Jenson and Nicholson

(I) Ltd.)
Cost Analysis
Considering an ETP data of 20 years that has been obtained from the industry, the
cost has been calculated for the lifetime of ETP. Calculation of the cost has been
made similar to the textile and dyeing industry.
Construction Cost
In calculating construction cost, the total investment made by the organization for
purchasing and installing the equipment for the setup of an ETP has been calculated. It has been observed that the organization made an investment of
Rs. 3,468,256. This is the construction cost of the treatment plant for the first
year, which is represented in detail in Table 9.24. The organization has not taken
any loan for the implementation of the ETP.
Operation Cost
The inputs required for the operation and maintenance of the ETP are chemicals,
energy, labors, water, etc. This industry has supplied the operational cost data for
the year 19992000 which is given in Table 9.25.
The present value of total cost in the future is calculated by discounting the total
cost over lifetime of ETP using a 10 % discount rate using the formula (9.1). The
cumulative of total cost has been calculated.
Benefit Analysis
The model for evaluating the direct benefit was constructed based on the assumption which has already been explained in the case of textile-dyeing industry. A
certain percentage of the total revenue (TR) is to be deposited to the WBPCB as a

Jenson and Nicholson (I) Ltd.
(19992000)
Item
3. Maintenance cost
211
Cost (Rs.)
144,000
197,736
60,000
354,912
276,000
penalty if the industry avoids setting up the ETP. The details of the total revenue
that has been supplied by the industry are for the year 19992000. Using these data,
the total revenue of the industry for the year of ETP installation has been estimated
by backward calculation. Different annual inflation rates for the various years have
been used for this calculation. The total revenue for the year of installation of ETP
is Rs. 341,488,514. The percentage of total revenue in the year of installation of
ETP which has to be deposited is decided by randomly choosing different values
that are assumed to be from 0.1 % onwards. The values of the different percentages
assumed for the fine along with the rupee amount are given in Table 9.26. The
minimum percentage value that gives the IRR value is then selected as the percentage value of fine. This amount is the direct benefit per year throughout the
lifetime of the ETP. It has been seen that a minimum of 0.25 % of the total revenue
(of the year of installation of ETP) gives the IRR value. The present value of the
direct benefit is also calculated over the lifetime of ETP.

The obtained values of the BCR for different percentage values, which have been
assumed as the percentage value of fine, are given in Table 9.26. The internal rate of
return has been estimated to be 15 % and ninth year as the payback period.
9.2.3.3
BenefitCost Analysis of Pharmaceutical Industry (Infar India

Ltd.)
Cost Analysis
Using the 10 years lifetime data that has been obtained from the industry, the total
cost has been calculated throughout the lifetime of ETP. Calculation of the cost is
the same like that carried out for the previous industries.
Construction Cost
For construction cost, the total investment made by the organization for purchasing
and installing the equipment for the setting up of ETP has been calculated to be
212
Table 9.26 Benefitcost ratio of Jenson and Nicholson (I) Ltd. for different percentage values
Values guessed (%)
discounted benefit
0.1
6,949,770
0.25
17,374,426
0.5
34,748,852
1
69,497,703
2
138,995,406
3
208,493,109
4
277,990,812
4.5
312,739,664
Source Chakraborty et al. (2008)
discounted cost
15,755,151
15,755,151
15,755,151
15,755,151
15,755,151
15,755,151
15,755,151
15,755,151
Values of BCR
0.4
1.1
2.2
4.4
8.8
13.2
17.6
19.8
Rs. 20,300,000. This is the construction cost of the treatment plant for the first year,
which is represented in detail in Table 9.27. The organization has not taken any loan
for the implementation of ETP.
Operation Cost
The input required for the operation and maintenance of ETP are chemicals, energy,
labors, water, etc. This industry has supplied the operational cost data for the year
20002001 which is given in Table 9.28.
The present value of the total cost in the future is calculated by discounting the
total cost over the lifetime of ETP using a 10 % discount rate using the formula
(9.1). The cumulative total cost has also been calculated.
Benefit Analysis
The model for estimating the benefit of ETP was done based on the same assumption as explained before. The total revenue of the industry for the year of installation
of ETP (19981999) has been computed by recursive calculation, and different
annual inflation rates are used for the various years. The total revenue for the year of
ETP installation is Rs. 158,192,615 (19981999). The percentage of the total
revenue in the ETP installation year which has to be deposited is again decided
by guessing the different values. The values of different percentages assumed for
the fine, along with the amount of fine, are given in Table 9.29. It has been seen that
a minimum fine of 2 % of the total revenue in the ETP installation year gives IRR
value. Similar to the previous calculations, the present value of the benefit in the
future is calculated by discounting the benefit over the lifetime of ETP using a 10 %
discount rate. The cumulative total benefit has also been calculated.
213

cost of Pharmaceutical
Industry [Infar India Ltd]
(19981999)
Item
Civil work
Mechanical equipment
Electrical equipment
Others
Rupees
5,900,000
8,900,000
250,000
3,000,000

[Infar India Ltd] (20002001)
Item
Service contract
Cost of chemicals
Maintenance cost
Cost of water used
Electricity charge
Rupees
554,000
570,000
100,000
Nil
1,270,000
Table 9.29 Benefitcost ratio of Pharmaceutical Industry (Infar India Ltd.) (20002001) for
different percentage values
Values guessed (%)
discounted benefit
0.1
1,581,926
0.25
3,954,815
0.5
7,909,631
1
15,819,262
2
31,638,523
3
47,457,785
4
63,277,046
4.5
71,186,677
discounted cost
38,761,821
38,761,821
38,761,821
38,761,821
38,761,821
38,761,821
38,761,821
38,761,821
Values of BCR
0.04
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
1.8

For the present industry, the tenth year has been found as the payback period. The
obtained values of the BCR for different percentage values, which have been
assumed as the percentage value of fine, are given in Table 9.29. The internal rate
of return has been found to be 27 %.
9.2.3.4
BenefitCost Analysis of Pharmaceutical Industry (East India

Pharmaceutical)
Cost Analysis
The lifetime of the ETP in this industry is 15 years, and the cost has been calculated
considering this lifetime of ETP.
214
cost of East India
Pharmaceutical (19951996)
Item
1. Equipment cost
2. Material charge
4. Building cost
5. Others
Rupees
1,000,000
2,285,000
305,000
520,000
380,000
Construction Cost
The total investment made by the organization for purchasing and installing the
equipment for setup of ETP has been estimated to be Rs. 4,490,000, which is the
construction cost of the treatment plant for the first year and represented in detail in
Table 9.30. The organization has taken a loan of Rs. 43 lakhs for the implementation of the ETP. An interest of 16 % per year, that is, Rs. 7,092,500, was paid by the
organization in each year and has been considered for the remaining years of ETP.
Operation Cost
This industry has supplied the operational cost data for the year 19981999 which is
given in Table 9.31. Following the same procedure as previously, the entire
operational cost throughout the lifetime of the ETP has been estimated by using
different annual inflation rates. Details of the operation cost are given in the year
19992000 (Table 9.31).
Total annual cost for each year is arrived at by adding construction and interest
cost to the total operational cost for that year. The present value of total cost in the
future is then calculated by discounting the total cost over lifetime of ETP using a
10 % discount rate. The cumulative total cost has also been calculated.
Benefit Analysis
Similarly, the total benefit was estimated using the same assumptions as the above
industries. The total revenue for the year of installation of ETP is Rs. 57,961,781.
The values of different percentage assumed for the fine, along with the rupee
amount, are given in Table 9.32. In this case, it is calculated that a minimum of
4.5 % of the total revenue in the ETP installation year gives IRR value. The present
value and cumulative total of the benefit is calculated over the lifetime of ETP.

For the present industry, the 11th year has been found as the payback period. The
obtained values of the BCR for different percentage values, which have been

East India Pharmaceutical
(19992000)
215
Item
3. Maintenance cost
4. Electricity
Rupees
204,166
2,484,540
581,652
957,760
3,230.25
Table 9.32 Benefitcost ratio of East India Pharmaceutical for different percentage values
Values guessed (%)
discounted benefit
1
8,694,270
2
17,388,540
3
26,082,801
4
34,777,068
4.5
39,124,205
discounted cost
20,003,690
20,003,690
20,003,690
20,003,690
20,003,690
Values of BCR
0.4
0.9
1.3
1.7
2.0
assumed as the percentage value of fine, are given in Table 9.32. Internal rate of
return has been estimated to be 13 %.
9.2.3.5
BenefitCost Analysis of Textile Industry (Eastern Spinning

Mills of India, Ltd.)
Cost Analysis
The lifetime of the ETP in this industry is 15 years and the cost has been calculated
considering this lifetime of ETP.
Construction Cost
It has been observed that the organization has made an investment of Rs. 2,635,336
for the construction cost of the treatment plant for the first year, which is
represented in detail in Table 9.33. It has been observed that the organization has
taken a loan of Rs. 1,000,000 from internal resources and Rs. 16, 00,000 lakhs from
the bank for the construction of the ETP at 16.5 % per annum.
Operation Cost
The industry has supplied the operational cost data for the years 19981999 which
is given in Table 9.34. Following the same procedure as before, the entire operational cost structure throughout the lifetime of the ETP has been estimated using
different annual inflation rates for each of the years.
216

cost of Eastern Spinning Mills
of India, Ltd. (19931994)
Item
1. Equipment cost
2. Cost for construction of sludge tank
3. Transport cost
4. Labor cost
5. Material cost
6. Electricity cost
7. Consultancy

Eastern Spinning Mills of
India, Ltd. (19992000)
Item
3. Maintenance cost
4. Electricity
Rupees
1,905,731
96,670
36,468
146,099
321,409
8,959
120,000
Rupees
316,560
364,750
1,512
3,024
795,960
Total annual cost for each year is arrived at by adding total construction cost to
the total operational cost for that year, and the present value of total cost in the
future is calculated by discounting the total cost over lifetime of ETP using a 10 %
discount rate. The cumulative total cost has also been calculated.
Benefit Analysis
Using similar assumptions as before, the total revenue for the year for the industry
was Rs. 70,200,000. It has been estimated that a minimum 0.25 % of the total
revenue (of the year of installation of ETP) gives the IRR value. The present value
and cumulative total value of the benefit is also calculated over lifetime of ETP.

For the present industry, two and half year has been found as the payback period.
Table 9.35 presents the BCR for the different percentage values assumed as the
percentage value of fine. Internal rate of return has been estimated to be 86 %.
217
Table 9.35 Benefitcost ratio of Eastern Spinning Mills of India, Ltd. for different percentage
values
Values guessed (%)
discounted benefit
0.1
10,545,446
0.25
26,340,446
0.5
52,665,046
1
105,315,246
2
210,616,440
3
31,596,246
4
421,215,321
4.5
473,866,123
9.2.4
discounted cost
16,344,801
16,344,801
16,344,801
16,344,801
16,344,801
16,344,801
16,344,801
16,344,801
Values of BCR
0.6
1.6
3.2
6.4
12.9
19.3
25.8
29.0
Assessment of Effluent Treatment Plants

in West Bengal
A significant number of industries in West Bengal have been producing water

pollution at much higher rate than the Minimal National Standards (MINAS)
approved by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. These industries continuously discharge their wastewater into the watercourse of the Hooghly River, the
municipal sewerage and cultivated lands, which poses an increasing threat to
economic growth and development prospect of West Bengal economy. A limited
number of these industries have put in some effort by installing ETP to minimize
the water pollution they generated. The above case studies conducted by
Chakraborty et al. (2008) attempted to investigate the pollution generation, abatement cost, and wastewater quality status to provide an economically viable model
for evaluating the viability of the investment in ETP. Five industries in West Bengal
have been chosen for the study.
It is evident from the different case studies of West Bengal that the installation of
ETP caused the wastewater quality of each industry to improve. This means that the
ETP of each industry is effective in keeping the quality of wastewater within the
permissible limit of discharge and that there is environmental gain in the installation of ETP. Eastern Spinning Mills and East India Pharmaceuticals have experienced highest environmental gain due to the installation of ETP as they convert
their wastewater from Class D to Class A using their ETP. The viability of the ETP
of each industry has been evaluated based on three criteria internal rate of return
(IRR), payback period (PBP), and benefitcost ratio (BCR). The minimum percentage of annual revenue in the year of ETP installation which gives the IRR value
has been suggested as the percentage value for the fine. It is seen that this
percentage value for the fine is different for different industries. Based on this
minimum percentage value, the calculated values of IRR, BCR, and PBP are given
in Table 9.36.
It is evident from the values of the payback period (PBP) that all the aforesaid
industries could recover their full investment in the ETP within its lifetime although
218
Table 9.36 Values of IRR, BCR, and PBP for five effluent treatment plants in West Bengal
Year of
installation
Name of the industry of ETP
1. Eastern Spinning 19931994
Mills & India
Ltd.
2. East India
19981999
Pharmaceuticals
3. Jenson & Nichol- 19951996
son (I) Ltd.
4. Infar India
19981999
Pharmaceuticals
5. Samson
19981999
Processing
Industries
Life time
of ETP
(years)
15
Assumption of
percentage values on total
revenue for fine
0.25
Estimated values of
criteria
IRR
86
PBP BCR
2.5 1.6
15
4.5
13
11
1.9
20
0.25
15
1.1
10
27
10
0.8
20
16
1.1
the recovery rate is different for each industry. It is very fast for Eastern Spinning
Mills, medium for Jenson and Nicholson (I) Ltd. and for Samson Processing
Industries, and slow for East India and Infar India Ltd.
It is also clear from the table that the values of benefitcost ratio (BCR) are
greater than one for all the aforesaid industries (except Infar India Ltd.). This
indicates that the installation of ETP generates benefit in excess of the investment
in the ETP over the lifetime of the ETP. The profitability of benefit is high for
Eastern Spinning and East India Pharmaceuticals, medium for Jenson and Nicholson (I) and Samson Processing, and low for Infar India Ltd. The internal rate of
return (IRR) value for the aforesaid industries is also more than the cost of
investment (10 %). This means that they can equalize total expenditure involved
in ETP with its benefit by a definite rate within the lifetime of ETP. Therefore, the
installation of ETP has been viable with different IRR values obtained for different
industries. The Eastern Spinning has the highest IRR value (86 %) while other
industries have less IRR value.
Thus the findings of the above case studies suggest that the measures to control
water pollutants by setting up an ETP in five industries have been successful in
West Bengal. The other industries in West Bengal which have not yet implemented
these measures can learn a lesson from these exercises in setting up an ETP.
9.3
Other Case Studies in India
We shall now present several other case studies on wastewater treatment conducted
in different parts of India.
9.3 Other Case Studies in India
9.3.1
219
A Case Study of Textile Industry in Pali, Rajasthan
Singh et al. (2011) made a performance evaluation of a common effluent treatment

plant treating textile wastewaters. In this study, the performance of a CETP treating
3,405 m3/day wastewater from 450 synthetic textile mills was evaluated.
CETP in the case study is located in Pali which is in the Northwestern State of
Rajasthan of India and is situated on the banks of river Bandi. The total area of this
town is about 12,387 km2 with around 989 dyeing and printing units. Dyeing and
printing of synthetic fabrics is the major activity along with desizing, mercerizing,
kiering, and bleaching. The combined wastewater besides alkaline pH and intense
color contains certain organic and inorganic chemicals from the various process
operations.
Four criteria were used by the authors. These are design, operation, maintenance,
and administration. Design data was collected from each operational unit of the
CETP, and a scoring method was used to assess the adequacy of design. Actual
operational efficiency of the CETP was evaluated by collecting samples (19 in all)
at each stage of treatment. All samples were analyzed for 16 physicochemical
parameters. Administration capability and adequacy of maintenance systems were
evaluated using questionnaires and by conducting staff interviews.
The study has found that most of the units are designed well, although it suggests
that some improvements like better mixing in equalization tank, modifications in
HRT, SOR, in the clariflocculator, and increasing HRT in aeration tank, can be
achieved by changing operational parameters. The lime and FeSO4 tanks also have
inadequate capacity and mixing that needs improvement. Existing sludge drying
beds are only 27 % of the area required, and therefore further construction is
required. COD and BOD in the outlet exceeded the standards for effluents for the
textile industries. The two aeration tanks also need improvements in terms of
performance, and this can be achieved by improving the biomass in the aeration
tanks I and II and increasing the HRT. Other standards were met by the treated
effluents.
Thus, the overall performance of the CETP was evaluated considering several
aspects and recommendations were then made by the authors for improving its
performance.
9.3.2
Case Study of Textile Industry in Tirupur and Karur,

Tamil Nadu
The study by Ranganathan et al. (2007) analyzed the advanced treatment technology of wastewaters of textile-dyeing units of Tirupur and Karur, Tamil Nadu.
Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu is well known for cotton production and is
also called as the Manchester of Southern India. Tirupur, one of the towns in the
district, is located at the bank of river Noyyal, a tributary to river Cauvery. The
220
quality of Noyyal river water and climatic condition of Tirupur have been ideal for
dyeing operation of yarn and fabric for a long time. Presently there are 712 dyeing
and bleaching industries in Tirupur that generate 87,000 m3/day of wastewater. Out
of this, a total of 281 industries are attached to a common effluent treatment plants
while others have their individual effluent treatment plants.
Textile-dyeing industries in Tirupur and Karur of Tamil Nadu (India) usually
discharge effluents ranging between 80 and 200 m3 per ton of production. Dyeing is
performed either by conventional winch process or by advanced soft flow reactor
process. Hypochlorite, the commonly used bleaching chemical, is being gradually
phased out by alkaline hydrogen peroxide solution that generates less effluent and
fewer solids in the effluents. Coloring of yarn/cloth takes place in the presence of
high concentration of sodium chloride or sodium sulfate (2575 kg/m3) in dye
solutions. Dye bath wastewaters and wash waters are the process effluents of dyeing
industry which are collected separately or together and follow the advanced treatment for maximum recycling of recovered waters. After treating dye bath water by
sand and nanofiltrations (NF), the permeate is used in the process for dye bath
preparation and the reject of about 2030 % is sent to multi-effect evaporator
(MEE)/solar evaporation pond (SEP). Wastewaters treated using a sequence of
physicochemical and biological unit processes are passed into two stages reverse
osmosis (RO) membrane systems, and then the permeate is reused in the processes.
The rejects of about 1520 % of the inlet volume is either subject to nanofiltration
for salt recovery or sent to evaporators. The final rejects from nanofilter systems is
directed to a multi-effect evaporator system where condensed waters are recovered.
The average percent removals of BOD, COD, TDS, sodium, and chloride in the
advanced treatment technology are in the range of 8898 %, 9197 %, 8097 %,
96 %, and 7697 %, respectively. Multiple effect evaporators outflows of about 2
3 % of the effluent volume are allowed for solar evaporation, and the solids are
disposed off. The most attractive part of water recovered from these membranes is
its extremely low hardness, which is always demanded in textile sector for an
improved finish and better quality dyeing. The cost of operation of MEE is about
Rs. 400/m3 of the effluent. The treatment and maintenance cost of Rs. 80/m3 is
cheaper than the water cost of Rs. 100/m3 in Tirupur and Karur areas. Common
facility for multistage evaporator would be economical. The study shows the
recycling of treated wastewater, and zero wastewater discharge is found technically
feasible and economically viable in the textile-dyeing industries located in the area
of Tirupur and Karur, Tamil Nadu.
9.3.3
Sugar Industry in Maharashtra
The sugar industry is one of the most water-polluting industries with the recently
studied pollution concentrations for some factories in India with as high as
1,154 mg/L of BOD, 5,915 mg/L of COD, and 5,759 mg/L for SS. The industry
has to incur a significant cost to reduce these very high influent concentrations of
221
pollutants to the Minimum National Standards (MINAS) of 35 mg/L of BOD,

250 mg/L of COD, and 100 mg/L for SS in India (Murty et al. 2006).
A study was conducted on sugar industry in Maharashtra by Rao et al. (2011).
They considered Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana at Kuditre for their
study. It is situated about 12 km west of Kolhapur City, a hilly area with a semiarid
climatic condition. The factory has approximately 100 acres of land area, and the
consumption of raw material is 127.50 kg/Mt crushed in the year 2009. It was found
that more water is used in the process than the sugarcane itself. Water consumption
per product output is 4.02 L/kg of sugar produced. The bagasse which is the
remaining part of sugarcane after juice extraction is used as fuel for boiler in this
factory.
The factory has provided and managed a well-equipped effluent treatment plant
for handling 1,500 MCu/day. The plant is based on extended aeration principle and
gives the desired results for maintaining effluent parameters within the consented
limits stipulated by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. The treated effluent is
utilized on land for irrigation of sugarcane fields. Wastewater is also generated in
the sugar factory from processing and some amount of spent lees2 from distillery.
All these wastewater are treated in the ETP of sugar factory treatment process to
achieve BOD reduction from 1,000 mg/L, that is, 92 % treatment efficiency.
There are two stages of biological treatment plants. The first stage comprises an
aerobic lagoon equipped with surface aerator and the second stage involves a
conventional complete mix activated sludge process. The aerated lagoon in first
phase is expected to reduce BOD by 50 %, that is, from 1,000 to 500 mg/L. The
second stage is activated sludge process which further provides 90 % reduction in
BOD resulting into an effluent having 50 mg/L of BOD.
Measures for environmental protection initiated by the sugar factory modifications in effluent treatment plant are good indicators of the environmental management arising from the spent wash3 as well as compost. This is the best outcome
towards resource conservation. Thus, the study concludes that environmental audit
plays an important role to have a check on pollution control.
9.3.4
Pulp and Paper Industries in Northern India
The Central Government of India has constituted National Ganga River Basin
Authority (NGRBA) as a planning, financing, monitoring, and coordinating authority for strengthening the collective efforts of the Central and State Government for
2
The process wastewaters of a distillery consist of fermenter sludge, spent lees, and spent wash.
Spent less is usually recycled.
3
Distillery spent wash is the unwanted residual liquid waste generated during alcohol production
and the pollution caused by it is one of the most critical environmental issue (Mohana et al. 2009).
Indian spentwash contains very high amounts of potassium, calcium, chloride, sulfate, and BOD as
compared to spentwash in other countries (Joshi 1999).
222
effective abatement of pollution and conservation of the river Ganga. One of the
important functions of the NGRBA is to prepare and implement a Ganga River
Basin: Environment Management Plan (GRB EMP). A Consortium of seven Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT) has been given the responsibility of preparing Ganga
River Basin Environment Management Plan in 2010. They have done an exhaustive
study (GBP 2011a) in this respect; here we are presenting that.
Pulp and paper industries, particularly the agro based, are one of the major
contributors to river pollutions in Ramganga and Kali, and hence the river Ganga. It
is estimated that the total wastewater discharge directly or indirectly into the river
Ramganga from Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh is 162 and 74 MLD, respectively. This discharge not only affects the water quality of the river Ramganga but
also adversely impacts river Ganga downstream of the confluence of the two rivers.
Similarly, in the catchments of river Kali, 73 major industrial units discharge 86
MLD of wastewater bringing in an estimated 13,000 t/day of BOD load into the
river system. Out of the total wastewater discharge into the river Ramganga from
Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, the pulp and paper sector contributes about
146 MLD (90 %) and 39 MLD (53 %), respectively. It has also been estimated
that out of the total wastewater discharge into the river Kali, contribution from
15 pulp and paper industries located in Uttar Pradesh is about 37 MLD (51 %).
The experience in specifying standard for effluent treatment has been highly
unsatisfactory, and the National River Ganga continues to get polluted. The pulp
and paper industries located in the clusters in Kashipur, Muzaffarnagar, Meerut,
and Moradabad are manufacturing a variety of unbleached and bleached grade of
paper and paper products using agro residues, waste paper, and imported pulp. The
main varieties of paper produced are writing and printing paper, kraft paper, duplex
board, and newsprint. The scale of operation varies from 25 to 250 TPD with the use
of either single or multiple paper machines. The mills having pulp mill capacity
above 100 TPD and producing bleached variety of paper have already installed
chemical recovery plant for black liquor, while other mills making unbleached kraft
paper from agro residues are operating without chemical recovery plant. All mills
generally have effluent treatment facilities comprising of primary clarifier, aeration
system, and secondary clarifier. The performance efficiency of existing effluent
treatment plants (ETPs), however, is highly variable and is generally unsatisfactory.
The study (GBP 2011a) assesses the identified clusters of pulp and paper
industries. It captures the inventory and status of pulp and paper mills, cleaner
technology, and best practices options for overall improvement, water consumption
benchmarks, and strategies for minimizing water consumption and feasibility of
setting up common chemical recovery plant (CCRP) and common effluent treatment plant (CETP). A survey was conducted in the study region to assess the
existing water consumption for different operations in various industries. The
comparison of two options for treatment of pulp and paper effluents, namely,
effluent treatment at each industry (ETP) and effluent treatment in a common
effluent treatment plant (CETP) for a group of industries in vicinity, is conducted.
The trade-off is between the cost and efficacy of effluent treatment in a number of
223
small-size ETP within the premises of each industry and the economy of scale and
better management of CETP for a group of industries.
From the comparison of the estimated cost of treatment in ETP and CETP, the
study concludes that the advantage of economy of scale is not applicable for the
four clusters of pulp and paper industries under study in the Ganga Basin. In
addition, the great length of conveyance system needed due to the distant location
of the industries would require substantial investment on conveyance system. In
addition, the pumping cost, though much less in comparison to other costs, will
increase the operation and maintenance burden on each of the industries. Further,
the CETP option will discourage the industry to adopt recycling of treated water
due to the additional cost of conveying treated water back to the industry. This
would act as a deterrent to move towards the concept of zero discharge. Based on
the aforementioned information and arguments, the study has inferred that the
option of collecting effluents and treating in CETP is infeasible for the identified
clusters in the Ganga Basin.
They have also calculated the feasibility of zero discharge paradigm for four
different categories of pulp and paper industries. The financial implications of
achieving zero liquid discharge have been worked out separately for the agro
based and RCF based. For the agro-based program the cost of attaining zero
discharge paradigm will involve (1) cost incurred in treating black liquor in CRP
or CCRP as the case may be, (2) cost of producing industry grade water from
effluent without control on TDS for pulp production, and (3) cost of producing
industry grade water with TDS control of the balance effluent. RCF-based program
is where a part or all of the effluent may have to be tertiary treated to produce
industry grade water with TDS control. Thus, the cost of attaining zero discharge
paradigm will involve cost of producing industry grade water with tertiary and
partly with RO treatment of the total effluent (Table 9.37).
They found that to tertiary treat trade effluent, it will increase in average the
production cost for B1 (RCF-based writing and printing paper, duplex board,
newsprint) and B2 (RCF-based kraft paper) categories of industry by 46 %. This
analysis shows that the cost of tertiary treatment of the trade effluent is not
prohibitive and is technically feasible. Achieving zero liquid discharge by all
categories of the pulp and paper industries thus implies only an increase in cost
of the paper production by a few percent of the production cost for B1 and B2
category of industry and must be enforced to save the precious resources like river
Ganga in general and Ganga system in particular. The implementation of this may
result in slight reduction in profit margin or alternatively the cost will be passed on
to the consumers. Thus it is strongly recommended that the polluter pays principle must be adhered to achieve zero discharge paradigm in case of the pulp and
paper industries. This will immensely help saving the rivers, in particular the river
Ganga, from adverse impacts without significant impact on the industry or economy
or employment opportunities. On the other hand, an increase in average production
cost for A1 (agro based) and A2 (agro based) categories of industry to attain zero
discharge paradigm is in the range of 1719 %. This is on the higher side. However,
224
Table 9.37 Typical characteristics of water and wastewater from four different categories of pulp
and paper industries
Effluent
Raw
water
7.57.8
290
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
A2:
Agro
A1: Agro based based
B1: RCF based
B2: RCF
based
Writing and
printing paper
mills
7.07.8
1,1006,800
3841,950
7765,048
4502,234
8001,200
3519
Writing and printing paper,

Duplex board, newsprint
mills
6.87.3
8001,720
1604,387
2621,715
180958
235
Kraft paper
mills
6
8403,240
56680
7042,016
5931,058
22299
Parameters
pH
TDS mg/L
TSS mg/L
COD, mg/L
BOD, mg/L
Color, RCO
Turbidity,
NTU
180185
Hardness,
mg/L as
CaCO3
Source: GBP (2011a)
a
Mills are using RCF only at present
Kraft
paper
mills
6
1,560
466
1,010
543
a
106
the study suggests that for the nations larger interest, a zero discharge paradigm
must still be enforced to protect rivers like Ganga and the Ganga system.
9.3.5
A Case Study on Tannery in Uttar Pradesh
Tare et al. (2012) conducted a study on tannery effluents in Uttar Pradesh. The study
attempted a comparative assessment of the cost and quality of treatment of tannery
wastewater in India by two common effluent treatment plants (CETPs) constructed
for two tannery clusters, at Jajmau and at Unnao in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The
Jajmau plant is upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) process-based, while the
Unnao plant is activated sludge process (ASP)-based.
In Jajmau, 310 tanneries operate with an average daily rawhide processing
capacity of 320 t. Approximately 295 tanneries convey 7.75 million liters per day
(MLD) of effluent to the UASB-based CETP at Jajmau that was designed to treat
9 MLD of tannery wastewater. Hence, a UASB plant with an original 36 MLD
capacity of treating common effluent had to be designed for treating 9 MLD of
tannery wastewater. Average daily rawhide processing in Unnao is 47.5 t from a
cluster of 28 tanneries. The Unnao CETP, which is an ASP-based plant, receives 1.9
MLD of tannery wastewater against a design flow of 2.15 MLD. Preliminary
treatment of wastewater for removal of grit and Cr(Chromium) is performed in
the tannery itself in both cases.
225
The capital cost for the UASB-based plant in Jajmau (Kanpur) for treatment of
36 MLD common effluents containing 9 MLD of tannery effluent was Rs. 191.5
million or Rs. 21.3 million per MLD of tannery effluent treated. The capital costs
for the ASP-based plant in Unnao for treatment of 2.15 MLD of tannery effluent
were Rs. 19.3 million or Rs. 8.96 million per MLD of tannery effluent treated. The
annual operation and maintenance costs for the Jajmau plant were Rs. 8.6 million or
Rs. 0.98 million per MLD of tannery effluent treated/year. Similar costs for the
Unnao plant were Rs. 4.8 million or Rs. 2.25 million per MLD of tannery effluent
treated/year.
To compare the two CETPs of different sizes, the capital and O&M costs were
normalized in the study. The results were in favor of the UASB plant at Jajmau,
Kanpur because of the efficiencies of scale between two plants. The ASP-based
Unnao CETP is of smaller capacity (2.15 MLD), while Jajmau plant is of larger
capacity (36 MLD). This is despite the fact that cost calculations for UASB-based
treatment assume income from power generation as per design of the plant although
the actual power generation based on the field performance is much less. The
UASB-based plant at Jajmau is constructed on an area of 12.5 ha. Hence, 1.4 ha
of land is required per MLD of tannery effluent treated in this plant while the land
requirement for the ASP-based plant at Unnao is 0.95 ha per MLD of tannery
effluent treated.
The performance of the ASP-based CETP was close to the predicted performance. On the other hand, the performance of the UASB-based CETP was much
poorer than the designed performance values. The researchers have tried to explain
the reasons for this problem. They argued that the poor performance can be
attributed partially to the presence of high levels of SO42 (sulfate ion) in tannery
wastewater. It was also noticed that despite the existence of Cr removal facilities in
almost all tanneries discharging their effluents to the CETPs, high Cr concentrations, on the order of 55 mg/L, were observed in wastewater influent to both CETPs.
The cost of treatment of tannery effluent has been normalized in the primary
sedimentation facility in the UASB-based CETP. Installation of such a facility, as
argued by the authors, will ensure that only the sludge captured in the primary
sedimentation tank is Cr-contaminated, while the UASB reactor sludge is free of Cr
contamination. UASB treatment has resulted in partial reduction of BOD and COD
of domestic wastewater, while TSS, sulfide, and Cr concentration have increased.
However, the effluent quality after UASB treatment still does not satisfy Indian
standards for discharge of treated domestic wastewater into natural bodies of water.
Moreover, the sludge from the 36 MLD UASB-based CETP is contaminated with
Cr and, hence, is hazardous. Disposal of such sludge is problematic. The study
suggests that it is correct to classify the entire sludge generated by the UASB-based
CETP as a byproduct of the tannery wastewater treatment process.
Treatment of tannery effluents in CETPs involves collection, conveyance, and
treatment followed by final disposal of treated effluents and sludge to natural bodies
of water or on land. It is expected that the construction and operation of CETPs will
result in beneficial impacts on the environment as there will be an overall improvement in parameters determining environmental quality, as compared with the
226
situation before the construction of CETPs. Installation of both CETPs has resulted
in a reduction in organic loading to surrounding bodies of water. However, such
CETPs also tend to convert distributed streams of pollutant loading into one large
stream while also producing toxic sludge. In the case of the two CETPs studied, the
Cr-contaminated sludge produced from both CETPs is being disposed off without
proper care with the assumption that trivalent Cr is relatively nontoxic.4 As far as
treatment of tannery effluent is concerned, it is normally argued that anaerobic
treatment options are more advantageous compared to aerobic wastewater treatment process in tropical and developing countries. However, the comparative
assessment of CETPs from this study does not lead to a same conclusion.
Comparison in terms of total annualized cost, sludge production, and land
requirements indicates that the normalized values of these parameters, that is, per
MLD of tannery effluent treated, were higher in the case of the UASB-based
process compared to the ASP-based process. The study concludes that UASB
treatment may not be suitable for wastewater treatment in the area studied.
9.3.6
A Case Study on Tannery at Pammal in Tamil Nadu
The study was conducted on tanneries at Pammal in Chennai district, Tamil Nadu,
by Vasudevan et al. (2012). The purpose of the study was to evaluate the performance of the CETP for tannery effluent in terms of BOD, COD, TSS, TDS, and by
water tracer studies using rhodamine. The treatment plant treats tannery effluent
from tannery industries located in and around Pallavaram municipality. The treatment system adopts the activated sludge process. Wastewater was collected from
the equalization tank, primary clarifier, aeration tank, secondary clarifier and
treated effluent and was characterized for pH, TDS, TSS, COD, BOD, chloride,
sulfate, and chromium as per standard methods of wastewater analysis. The wastewater was collected at a regular time interval of 2 h for 48 h and was analyzed for
the concentration of the tracer.
Physiochemical characteristics of the tannery effluent from the equalization tank
of the CETP are as follows: pH of the wastewater ranged from 7.0 to 8.1., TDS from
500 to 2,000 mg/L, TSS was in the range of 1,0002,000 mg/L, COD from 3,500 to
5,000 mg/L, BOD from 1,100 to 1,600 mg/L, chloride from 1,000 to 2,000 mg/L
sulfate from 40 to 50 mg/L, and chromium from 0.01 to 0.02 mg/L. Raw effluent
characteristics were above the CPCB tolerance limit for effluent discharge.
BOD of the wastewater in the various treatment units varied from a high of
1,400 mg/L to a low of 40 mg/L. There was a considerable reduction in the BOD
during the treatment process. BOD removal during the study varied from 95 to 98 %
However, there are reports indicating the possibility of trivalent Cr being oxidized to hexavalent
Cr. 30 Hexavalent Cr is reported to be highly toxic and, hence, environmental impacts of sludge
disposal should be properly assessed.
227
and the treatment system was able to achieve a maximum BOD removal of 98.5 %.
BOD removal of 98.5 % can be attributed to the decomposition and mineralization
of organic and inorganic compounds. BOD is the most important parameter in the
treatment process design and effluent discharge or reuse. Higher BOD removal may
be mainly due to the higher volumetric loading rate higher than 0.30.7 kg
BOD/m3day. Similar removal efficiency for BOD was reported by others for a
CETP in the treatment of tannery effluent.
COD of the tannery effluent in the various unit of CETP also showed a reduction
up to 200 mg/L. COD of the wastewater in the various treatment units varied from a
high of 5,940 mg/L to a low of 200 mg/L. A maximum COD removal of 96.63 %
was achieved during the study period. Similarly about 95 % COD removal was
observed during the treatment of tannery effluent by using halophilic bacterial
consortium. COD/BOD ratio of the treated effluent was about 3.5 which shows a
substantial portion of the organic matter is nonbiodegradable. This nonbiodegradable organics may due to the high dye content in the tannery effluent which
can be removed by using UV-ozonation.
TSS of the tannery effluent in the various unit of CETP also showed a reduction
ranging from 2,000 to 60 mg/L. A maximum removal efficiency of 96.58 % was
observed during the study. TDS of the tannery effluent in the various units of CETP
did not show that much reduction compared to the other parameters. TDS of the
wastewater in the various treatment units varied from 8,200 to 5,100 mg/L. A
removal efficiency of only 8.6 % was observed. The plant is originally designed to
treat water with TDS of little above 2,100 mg/L, whereas the TDS level of the
wastewater at present is 5,0007,000 mg/L which is mainly due to the use of the
salts in the tanneries. Generally TDS cannot be reduced in the biological wastewater treatment system. The norms for the discharge of trade effluent as prescribed by
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) are 2,100 mg/L. Hence, it is
suggested that to reduce the TDS level to 2,100 mg/L (TNPCB standard), a reverse
osmosis process is used. The parameters like BOD, COD, and TSS in the treated
effluent were found to be higher than those prescribed by the TNPCB for most of
the time during the study period. The BOD and TSS removal efficiency have
increased due to the addition of lime, alum, and polyelectrolyte in the primary
clariflocculator.
Suitable remedial measures can be adopted to improve the performance of the
treatment plant. All individual units in the CETP were checked for their efficiency
in the design for treating the wastewater, and no flaws were found and hence the
performance of the CETP based on the design is found to be satisfactory. However,
the effluent flow into the equalization tank and the primary clarifier should be
admitted equally in order to get an even distribution of suspended solids. Based on
the study regarding the performance of the CETP, the following conclusions and
recommendations were made. The volumetric loading was found to be in the range
of 0.460.65 kg BOD/m3day. The normal range is from 0.30 to 0.7 kg BOD/m3day.
The loading rates have been considerably increased due to the presence of the more
fleshing organic matters in the tannery effluent, which has resulted in lower BOD
removal efficiencies in this study. The removal efficiency can be increased by
228
increasing the concentration of microorganisms and maintaining the food to micro

organism (F/M) ratio at 0.18 and maintaining higher mean cell residence time.
The study by Vasudevan et al. (2012) revealed that the wastewater treatment of
tannery can be improved by optimizing some major wastewater treatment plant
operating parameters like volumetric loading rate, F/M ratio, and MLVSS (mixed
liquor volatile suspended solids). For improving the TDS removal, it is
recommended by them to go for reverse osmosis since TDS cannot be removed
by biological treatment system.
9.3.7
A Case Study on Tannery in North Arcot District,

Tamil Nadu
Sankar (2000) made a thorough study of the economies of CETPs using data on the
basis of a field study from five CETPs which were in operation in the tannery
clusters of Ranipet and Vaniyambadi in North Arcot district of Tamil Nadu.
The size of the CETP in terms of number of members varies from 10 to 110, and
in terms of volume of effluent, from 200 to 4,000 m3 or kilo liters per day (KLD).
The length of the sewerage varies from 1.5 to 8.00 km. All CETPs comply with the
standards for pH, sulfide, and total chromium. The CETP at SIDCO phase 1 violates
the standards for four parameters, BOD, COD, SS, and TDS while that at
Melvisharam violates the standards for SS and TDS. For all five CETPs, the TDS
values at the outlets are far above the norm of 2,100 mg/L.
The study has attempted to estimate the tentative cost of TDS removal by two
methods available membrane separationreverse osmosis (RO) process and high
rate transpiration system (HRTS). The total cost per KLD effluent treated varies
from Rs. 4.27 to 22.45 for RO plants. The study has also compared the RO options
with RTS options which show that RTS is a lower cost option. However, there are
several problems in adopting RTS options such as availability of land near the
plants and also uncertainties regarding the impact of using the wastewater on soil
quality and product from the trees. Therefore, the study suggests that although the
RO process is costlier, it enables recovery of 80 % of the used water and social
benefit of recovering and reusing the water is high.
Sankar (2000) has also estimated the pollution abatement cost per KLD of
effluent treated. He found that with the RO options, the abatement cost varies
from Rs. 20.76 for the largest CETP to Rs. 6,618 for the smallest CETP. On the
other hand, with the RTS options the corresponding variation is from Rs. 18.02 to
Rs. 45.26. He has also computed the economic costs of pollution abatement per kg
of hides and skins processed and computed as a percent of sales and shows that it is
less than 1 %. The conversion cost of 1 kg of raw hides and skins to the finished
leather is in the range of Rs. 2835. Thus, the study found that the abatement cost as
percentage of the conversion cost ranges from less than 1 to about 3 %. Finally the
study concludes that for plants with design capacity of less than 400 KLD, CETP is
229
a cost-effective option for full compliance with the standards. Given the domestic
regulatory pressures and external pressures, it suggested that the tanners must use
CETP as an institutional mechanism for solving the environmental problems caused
by them.
From the case studies, we find that different industries have adopted different
measures depending on capacity. The findings from West Bengal studies reveal that
measures to control water pollutants by setting up ETP in five industries have been
successful. While the experiences from leather industry in North and South India
show similar results, they have used CETP to control water pollution. On the other
hand, a typical cluster of pulp and paper industry in northern India observes the
feasibility of the ETP compared to the CETP.
9.3.8
Experiences from Common Effluent Treatment Plants

in India
After independence, the industrial sector in India has expanded dramatically,

including the major water-polluting industries such as the petrochemical, pharmaceutical, pesticide, paint, dye, petroleum, fertilizer, asbestos, caustic soda, inorganic chemicals, and general engineering industries. Small-scale industries (SSIs)
have also played an important role in overall industrial development in India, and
the growth of SSI units has been promoted by the government to achieve an
economically sustainable development, even though small industries are often
highly polluting.
The industrial control regime in India is based on the standards and regulation
approach. Source-specific concentration-based standards have been laid down for
polluting units, and the penalties for noncompliance with the standards are fine,
imprisonment of officials responsible for noncompliance, disconnection of electricity/water supply, and closure of the units. The standards are the same for large
and medium units as well as for small units. While most of the large and medium
polluting units have been able to erect and operate effluent treatment plants (ETPs),
this option does not appear to be viable for many small units because of their small
size and technical, financial, and managerial constraints.
It is difficult for each industrial unit to provide and operate an individual
wastewater treatment plant because of the scale of operations or lack of space
or/and technical manpower. The volume of pollutants emitted by SSIs clusters may
be more than an equivalent to a large-scale industry because of the inefficient
production technologies adopted by SSIs. To deal with the effluent in these SSIs,
the concept of common effluent treatment plan (CETP) was introduced with a hope
that not only it would help the industries in pollution abatement but also as a step
towards a cleaner environment (CPCB 2005). Common effluent treatment plants
are being suggested as a cost-effective option for compliance with the standards for
small and medium polluting units in industrial clusters. This would require
230
improvements of infrastructural facilities (e.g., pipeline for connection and delivery

of the effluent) (CPCB 2005).
Accordingly, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) initiated and
promoted the CETP scheme for treatment of effluents generated from SSI units
located in clusters through liberal financial assistance. The CETP scheme was
instituted initially for a period of 10 years with effect from the year 1991, but the
MoEF has decided to continue financial assistance under the scheme beyond this
period. Most of the 88 CETPs constructed and commissioned so far were financed
under the CETP scheme of the Government of India.
Of the 88 CETPs that have been constructed and commissioned so far in the
country, the Central Pollution Control Board has studied the performance of
78 CETPs operating throughout the country. It is observed that only 20 of the
78 CETP studied (i.e., 25.6 %) complied with the prescribed limits for general
parameters pH, BOD, COD, and TSS even as 15 of these were not able to comply
with the prescribed limit for TDS. Thus, only 5 (i.e., 6.4 %) CETPs were complying
under all general parameters including TDS.
The experiences of the functioning of CETPs have raised a number of industryspecific problems across various effluents. Some of them as indicated by the CPCB
study can be briefly reported.
The efficacy of CETP based on activated sludge process employed for treatment
of tannery effluent was analyzed for the efficiency to reduce chromium and other
contaminants. It is expected that the construction and operation of CETP will result
in beneficial impacts on the environment. CETP uses activated sludge process
where a flocculent mixture of an aerobic population of microorganism and wastewater are aerated. For the safe discharge of wastewater into water bodies after
treatment, concentration of Cr has to be brought down below the permissible levels.
Tanneries may use a combination of chemical and microbial processes to produce
ecolabeled leather/leather products (CPCB 2005).
High TDS in treated effluent is observed to be a widespread problem. The CPCB
study found that 69 out of the 78 CETPs did not comply with TDS standards. TDS
concentration of the wastewaters is mainly due to the inorganic ions in the water
supply and those added during the use of water in industries such as tanneries,
pharmaceutical units, chemical manufacturing units, and dye and dye intermediates
units. In all such cases, the best approach for reduction of TDS is to try reduction at
the source by adopting a cleaner technology for minimizing net input of chemicals
in addition to practicing recovery and recycling of chemicals.
High TDS in the raw influent reaching CETPs and, as a result, in treated effluent
of CETPs is a major cause of concern, more so because it is generally caused by
high salinity which requires costly treatments such as reverse osmosis (RO) and
nanofiltration systems followed by multistage evaporator systems (MSES). Areaspecific thoughtful approach is required to tackle this problem. First attempt should
be reduction in release of TDS contributing chemicals from problem industries by
adopting cleaner production technologies and recovery and recycling of chemicals
from the waste streams. Second option should be treatment of waste stream for TDS
at the level of individual industry. Treatment of TDS at the CETP should be the last
231
option unless some special conditions demand so. State Pollution Control Boards
should investigate all the TDS-related problem areas and compel the industries/
CETPs for its solution. The State Pollution Control Boards may consider prescribing location-specific regulations for the control of TDS at the industry level (CPCB
2005).
It is observed from the unit-wise performance data of various CETPs that poor
performance of primary- and secondary-settling units is an important factor responsible for overall poor performance of CETPs. The efficiency of treatment by the
physicochemical process is decided by the TSS concentration in the effluent of
primary settling unit. Treatment schemes of almost all the CETPs employ primary
settling as one treatment unit and a secondary biological treatment in most of the
schemes. Sublevel performance of primary and secondary settling units has been
observed in a large number of CETPs.
In most cases, the CPCB study found that these settling units are not complying
with the prescribed standards (an effluent having <50 mg/L TSS). The study noted
that there is scope for improvement of the performance of CETPs by paying
attention to the performance of settling units. Things which require investigations
include optimizing the chemical doses, proper flocculation, proper sludge withdrawal frequency and duration, avoiding short-circuiting in the tank, assessing
surface overflows, solids loading, and weir loading, and adjusting optimum
recirculation rate in secondary settling tank.
In two CETPs in Andhra Pradesh, the dissolved air floatation (DAF) units were
not able to give any significant reduction in organic matter or suspended solids.
Replacing the DAF unit with a primary settling unit in Pattancheru CETP may be
considered for improving efficiency of primary treatment and reducing operational
costs. An effective primary physicochemical treatment is also expected to improve
overall COD removal efficiency as high COD and TDS in treated effluent is a major
problem in these two CETPs of Andhra Pradesh. Most of the CETPs in textile units
of Tirupur and Karur have employed a treatment scheme with physicochemical
treatment followed by sand filtration and stabilization tank. Only a few have
adopted treatment scheme with additional biological secondary treatment. CETPs
of the former type require special efforts in optimizing chemical dozing for their
greater dependency on physicochemical treatment.
Dual media filter (DMF) unit, which has been employed in treatment schemes of
CETPs in Delhi, and at few other places and sand filter unit, which has been
employed in CETPs of textile units in Tamil Nadu, are normally used to improve
suspended solids level from near 50 mg/L in primary settling units effluent to near
10 mg/L. Incidentally, it also reduces the organic matter associated with the
suspended matter being removed. It may also remove a small fraction of organic
matter associated with colloidal matter that is coagulated and filtered during
filtration. However, filter units should not be depended upon to perform more
than the expected function as explained because if a DMF or a rapid sand filter
unit is over loaded, it will require frequent backwashing.
Activated carbon filter (ACF) unit, which has been employed in treatment
schemes of CETPs in Delhi and at few other places, is only meant for removing
232
trace organics, such as pesticides, phenols, and heavy metals, which escape the
primary treatment and therefore should not be loaded with bulk organic matter.
However, ACF as a terminal treatment unit can be said to be a misfit because very
frequent replacement or regeneration of the bed is neither easy nor economically
affordable.
Treatment schemes of Odhav CETP (Gujrat), Nandesari CETP (Gujrat),
Sarigam CETP (Gujrat), Dhareshwar CETP (Gujrat), and Sachin-II CETP (Gujrat)
have three-stage treatment and that of Tarapur CETP (Maharashtra) has four-stage
treatment, but these plants were still not meeting standards. This reflects gross
neglects in operation. If biological treatment units are properly operated and full
attention is paid to the proper settling at different stages of treatment as explained
above, performance of these plants could be greatly improved.
The concept of CETP was adopted as a way to achieve end-of-pipe treatment of
combined wastewater at a lower unit cost than that could be achieved by individual
industries. It is also used to facilitate discharge, monitoring, and enforcement by
environmental regulatory agencies. Thus, the investment of substantial government
finances in the CETP scheme was justified on the basis of potential benefits in terms
of pollution reduction and environmental improvements. However, it has not been
successful because of the heterogeneous nature of the effluent from different
industries. It has only compounded the toxic content to larger volumes. Moreover,
with the changing nature of effluent, many toxic substances like organochlorines,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals have found their way into the
waste stream. The various standards formulated for inlet and outlet effluent have
not mentioned these toxic chemicals and other volatile fugitives. The management
of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and inorganic residues in fluid form goes
beyond the capacity of primary and secondary treatment in CETPs. Reverse
osmosis, granulated activated carbon, ultrafiltration, ion exchange, and other tertiary treatment methods which could be effective in this case are not used by CETPs
mainly for economic reasons. This concept has also faced many operational and
institutional problems as many participating industries started withdrawing from
the scheme. With the growing pace of industrialization in India, these CETPs are
not always able to meet the need of the industrial clusters. This has resulted in
bypassing the treatment and directly discharging the untreated effluent in water
bodies.
References
Abbasi SA (1999) Water quality indices state-of-the-art. J Inst Public Health Eng 1:1324
Biogas Forum (1999) Evaluation of biomethanation potential of selected industrial organic
effluents in India. In: Biogas Forum II, vol 77. Bremen Overseas Research and Development
Association, Bremen, pp 614
Chakraborty D, Datta S, Malik P, Maity S, Mukhopadhyay K (2008) Water pollution generation
and abatement costs in selected industries of West Bengal. Int J Environ Dev 5(1):2961
References
233
CPCB (2005) Performance status of common effluent treatment plants in India. Central Pollution
Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi
GBP (2011a) Pulp and paper industries in Ganga River Basin: achieving zero liquid discharge.
Report Code: 014_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_04_Ver 1_Dec 2011, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India
Joshi HC (1999) Bio-energy potential of distillery effluents. Bio-energy News 3(6):17
Mohana S, Acharya BK, Madamwar D (2009) Distillery spent wash: treatment technologies and
potential applications. J Hazard Mater 163(1):1225
Murty MN, Kumar S, Paul M (2006) Environmental regulation, productive efficiency and cost of
pollution abatement: a case study of the sugar industry in India. J Environ Manag 79(1):19
Ranganathan K, Karunagaran K, Sharma DC (2007) Recycling of wastewaters of textile dyeing
industries using advanced treatment technology and cost analysis case studies. Resour
Conserv Recycl 50(3):306318
Rao TB, Chonde SG, Bhosale PR, Jadhav AS, Raut PD (2011) Environmental audit of sugar
factory: a case study of Kumbhi Kasari sugar factory, Kuditre, Kolhapur. Univers J Environ
Res Technol 1:5157
Sankar U (2000) Common effluent treatment plants: an institutional arrangement for pollution
control in small scale tanneries in India. Retrieved on November 2011, from http://www.elaw.
org/system/files/India2000.pdf, www.elaw.org/system/files/India2000.pdf
Singh A, Gautam R, Mishra SK (2011) Performance evaluation of a common effluent treatment
plant treating textile wastewaters in India. J Environ Res Dev 5(3A):696706
Tare V, Gupta S, Bose P (2012) Case studies on biological treatment of tannery effluents in India. J
Air Waste Manage Assoc 53(8):976982
Vasudevan N, Justin Aaron PS, Greeshma O (2012) Performance evaluation of a common effluent
treatment plant for tannery industries. J Eco-biotechnol 4(1):2528
Chapter 10
Summary and Conclusion
Almost all the countries of the world are concerned with the environmental
problems, and environmental considerations are becoming a part of the overall
development policy of every nation. The rapid growth of population, urbanization,
and industrialization are aggravating the problem by putting more pressure on water
resources.
The water resources of India considering both ground- and surface water as one
system is about 1,869 km3 (Table 1.1 in Chap. 1). However, due to topology and
uneven distribution of water resources over space and time, only about 1,123 km3 of
the total potential of 1,869 km3 is actually available for use (Table 1.1). Availability
of water is a paramount issue in India with demand for water exceeding supply by
as much as 30 % (CWC 2010). Agriculture, industry, and domestic uses are
competing for the limited supply. The agricultural sectors, which contribute 26 %
(approximately) to the national GDP, continue to dominate water use with 70 % of
total water consumption (Table 1.2 in Chap. 1). Industrial production has increased
in India because of the opening up of the economy since 1991 which contributes
approximately 24 % to GDP, and the demand on water resources from the industrial
sector has increased to 13.90 % of total water consumption (Table 1.2). This is
followed by the remaining household sector which claims 15.40 % of water
resources (Table 1.2). Apart from the pressure from the growing economy, available water resources are being overexploited by the rapid growth of population.
This has reduced the per capita availability of water resources in the country.
One of the biggest challenges that the country faces today is to resolve massive
environmental problems, which include industrial pollution, that is, pollution of air,
water, and soil due to industrial production; vehicular emissions; and hospital waste
and domestic sewage disposal, which needs immediate attention and calls for
appropriate measures.
An economy consists of a large number of industries. These industries do not
exist in isolation from each other, rather are interrelated. The interdependence
arises from the fact that the output of a sector is generally required as input by
another sector. Though some sectors do not produce pollution directly, they produce rather indirectly in a very significant way depending on the degree of
235
236
10 Summary and Conclusion
interdependence among sectors of the economy. There have been several studies,
but a quantitative analysis involving interdependence between water pollution and
economic activities is only few. The purpose of this study is to contribute to this
area. With detailed and recent data, an in-depth quantitative study linking the
economy and water pollution by different sectors of the Indian economy has been
done. This study spreads along ten chapters including summary and conclusion.
Chapter 1 provides a discussion on the link between environment and development and deals with the problem of water pollution and development. An accounting of water resources with consumption and availability has also been offered for
India. It is observed from this discussion that it is very difficult to prepare an
accurate national picture of Indias water resources because accurate field data
are almost nonexistent. Till now we have no arrangements in India to compile and
publish on an annual basis comprehensive data regarding various aspects of water
which are important for policy analysis and program formulation. Attention should
be given in this direction. Finally, a brief review of literatures primarily focusing on
water pollution and its effect and on quality indices and wastewater treatment is
presented and identifies the gap in the literature for India.
Chapter 2 reviews the status of water pollution in India and other Asian countries. Due to trade liberalization, especially after the 1990s, all emerging Asian
countries are affected to some extent with environmental pollution. Wastewater
generation primarily depends on the treatment strategies, and some countries have
already taken reasonable measures to wipe out the problem while others not.
Chapter 3 formulates a pollution model based on the inputoutput approach to
link the generation of water pollution with rest of the economy. Further, a modified
model including a clean water sector has also been developed to explore the impact
on the economy.
Chapter 4 deals with the data used in this work. The major data required for the
work are the inputoutput table of India; the different types of water pollutants
generated by the different industries of India; and the abatement cost for various
water-polluting industries. The study has used the inputoutput table of India for
the year 20062007 recently prepared by the CSO (2011). The inputoutput table of
20062007 consists of 130*130 sectors. For our study, the table has been aggregated to 38 sectors.
From the publications of the Central Pollution Control Board and various other
water pollution information sources, ten types of water pollution parameters which
are being discharged by the different industries of the Indian economy are identified. These are suspended solids (SS); dissolved solids (DS); chloride; sulfide; zinc;
phenol oil and grease; biochemical oxygen demand (BOD); chemical oxygen
demand (COD); and other pollutants such as nitrogen, chromium, cyanide, alkalinity. Detailed analysis of cost data concerning pollution abatement activities by
different industries of the Indian economy has also been presented. A large number
of industries do not conduct systematic effluent treatment, but we were able to
collect the pollution data for 31 sectors. Secondly, we have estimated the abatement
cost for the treatment of water pollution for each individual sector. However, the
10
237
cost data could only be collected for 16 sectors. The issue with data limitation is
also discussed in the chapter.
In the process of conducting all the experiments with the methodologies mentioned in Chap. 3, certain problems relating to the inadequacy of data were faced,
which made us suggest the following recommendations. Firstly, the lack of appropriate and required data on different types of water pollutants generated by different
industries of the Indian economy points towards the need for a detailed, adequate,
and recent up-to-date data on water pollutants. For example, data on water pollution
generated by the different types of chemical industries were not available in the
required form despite of this sector having extensive linkages with other sectors in the
economy. Availability of detailed data on this sector would have given a better result
as indirect pollution will be generated by other sectors of the economy. Secondly,
since most of the industries until now have no systematic approach towards effluent
treatment, they are unable to provide any practical data on the pollution abatement
costs. As a result, detailed breakup of the total cost of pollution abatement activity
has been possible to analyze for only 16 industries. Experiments in this study,
showing the effect of pollution control cost on output and prices of different goods
and services, have been attempted based on the available set of data, but for a more
effective and socially useful results, the study calls for a detailed, complete, and
recent dataset on cost of abatement of all the industries of the economy. These are
some of the areas which institutions like the CPCB and state pollution control boards
should keep in mind and take steps towards collecting the data for socially applicable
experiments. Universities and research institutes should be entrusted to make some
detailed micro-survey on these issues to provide a detailed data.
Chapter 5 reports the results based on the model calibrated in Chap. 3. It focuses
mainly on the sectoral pollution coefficient across each parameter identified for the
study. Analysis of direct and indirect coefficient of each pollutant has also been
discussed. The direct water pollution coefficients count the direct effect of pollution
generation within a sector, and the total (direct plus indirect) includes the indirect
effect of pollution generation among other related sectors.
The results show that the amount of total pollution generation per unit of the
product (Appendix 5.A.2) is significantly higher for all industries compared to the
direct pollution generation coefficient (Appendix 5.A.1). For example, direct pollution generation coefficient of leather industries is found to be 0.0001749,
0.0002525, 0.0002542, 0000526, and 0.0002102 for SS, DS, chloride, BOD, and
COD, respectively, per lakh rupees of output, whereas the total pollution coefficient
of this industry is 0.0005678, 0.0003623, 0.0003184, 0.0002287, and 0.0009229 for
SS, DS, chloride, BOD, and COD, respectively, which is much higher compared to
direct coefficients. Thus, one cannot simply look at the size of the direct water
pollution coefficients but must also consider the size of the total coefficients (direct
plus indirect) for better insight.
A significant number of industries (livestock, chemical industries, beverages,
leather, cotton textiles, miscellaneous textile, paper, and milk and milk Products) in
India are producing water pollution above MINAS by several times. We have seen
in Chap. 4 that a number of industries are able to control their water pollution
238
emission. The pollution abatement activities involve costs, which, in turn, will
affect the price and output of the different industries. To analyze the effect of these
costs, a clean water sector was added to the economy.
The chapter further computes the new set of output and prices due to the
implementation of the clean water sector into the economy and identifies the
most effected sector. The analysis shows that the demand for the output of all the
different sectors has changed and the price of all the sectors has increased. We find
that chemical, mining, and electricity are key sectors which have extensive linkages
in the demand for clean water. It is evident from the study that the inorganic
chemicals sector experiences the highest percentage increase in output (12.63 %),
followed by organic chemicals (5.93 %); electricity, gas, and water (5.47 %); and
mining and quarrying (3.16 %). Any shift in cost has an effect on prices.
The direct cost of clean water production is not the whole story. Since many
industries are affected by the cost of purchased intermediate goods and services,
prices have also risen unevenly across the economy. The pattern of final consumption has also been affected. This study shows that the percentage price increase is
high for electricity, gas, and water supply(9 %), construction(6.54 %), agriculture
(5.96 %), fertilizer, oil and vanaspati, sugar, petro coal tar products, organic heavy
chemicals, pesticides, inorganic heavy chemicals, cotton textile, livestock, etc.
Final consumers, that is, the households, ultimately bear the burden of pollution
generation, either through a price increase due to the production of clean water or
tax imposed by the government on producers or through a health treatment cost
when pollution is not treated. For the household, the relationship between the real
cost and real benefits remains nevertheless the same. Having paid for clean water
production or tax imposed by the government indirectly, household will spend less
on health treatment cost directly.
The chapter also identifies the total amount of different types of pollution in the
total final demand and its different components for the industries. The total coefficients as derived in this chapter provide policy makers with one way of assuming
the impact of alternative environmental management strategies on pollution
generation.
Chapter 6 offers detailed information regarding water pollution content in trade.
It starts with the discussion on two controversial hypotheses in the trade and
environment literature, known as pollution haven and factor endowment. It investigates the two hypotheses using water pollution parameters for India for the year
20062007. Research on India in this area is very thin. In light of this, the chapter
highlights the trend and pattern of trade in India for the last 10 years and more
(19982011). The result in relation to pollution haven and factor endowment has
been analyzed in detail. India is exporting more water pollution-intensive goods
while importing less. Therefore, India is a pollution haven, particularly for a
number of water pollution parameters (dissolved solids, chloride, sulfide, BOD,
and COD for the year 20062007). On the other hand, the result based on Leontief
and Leamer approaches for the factor endowment hypothesis reveals that India is
exporting labor-intensive goods and importing capital-intensive goods. The chapter
attempts to explain these results with regard to the composition of exports and
10
239
imports. Thus, the findings of water pollution content in Indias trade with the ROW
have thrown further insight on trade and environment debate.
Chapter 7 primarily deals with the simulation exercises on some pollution
abatement policies. The water-polluting firms in Indian industry are supposed to
meet the standards set for pollutants by the Central Pollution Control Board. A
sample of water-polluting industries in India shows that some firms have effluent
treatment plants and a few firms are also using process changes in production and
input choices to achieve effluent standards. However, unfortunately, most of them
are not complying with the standard. The laxity of formal environmental regulations by the government and the use of command and control instruments could be
regarded as factors responsible for large variations in complying with the pollution
standards by firms (Murty and Kumar 2011).
In this chapter, we suggested two pollution abatement policies and evaluated the
impact of these policies on output and prices. Two scenarios are developed. In
Chap. 4, we have calculated the abatement cost for 16 key industries in the
economy. If the existing industries having CETP or ETP could maintain the
standards, then the total abatement cost will increase. This additional cost to
achieve the standards can be treated as pollution tax. These pollution tax rates
will be different for different industries. For this study we could estimate abatement
cost only for 16 industries (milk and milk products; livestock; mining; sugar; tea,
coffee, and beverages; food products; cotton textile; jute, hemp, mesta textiles;
miscellaneous textiles; paper and paper products; paints, varnishes, and lacquers;
leather and leather products; rubber and rubber products; inorganic chemicals;
organic chemicals; and other chemicals). This additional cost borne by the 16 industries will have an impact on the whole economy. In the second scenario, a pollution
tax based on the total pollution tax for 16 industries, which is 0.76 % of gross value
added for India for the year 20062007, is imposed on all the sectors. Although the
tax rate was the same, the volume of tax was different across sectors because of the
differences in value added. We have focused on the impact of these two abatement
policies on outputs and prices in the Indian economy (Tables 7.1,7.2,7.3 and 7.4).
We received a similar pattern of changes in both outputs and prices for both policies
in some sectors, namely, inorganic and organic chemicals, electricity, mining,
sugar, and cotton textile.
We have also calculated the future load of water pollution in the context of
Indias growth strategy which will be useful to the policy makers and academic
community. Here we have attempted three scenarios to estimate the gross output
including clean water in the year 20162017. It is expected that the total output of
the economy will increase as with the economic growth, but the sectoral growth
rates would likely to vary. We are expecting the sectoral output changes not only
due to the increase in growth rate of the economy but also due to the implementation of clean water activities in the economy. Three different growth rates have
been applied to calculate the future impact on the Indian economy at the end of
current 12th Five-Year Plan. Firstly, we considered business as usual growth, if the
economy follows the current trend; secondly a promising high level growth has
taken into account following the announcement by the Planning Commission of
240
India at the end of the 11th Five-Year Plan; and thirdly we followed a reasonable
growth path as suggested by the RBI and other expert forecaster in India (details in
Chap. 7). We have noticed that the sectoral impacts differ according to scenarios.
Analysis across the scenarios reveals that water pollution-generating sectors will
grow rapidly, though the abatement activities will continue to increase the output of
clean water sector. In this context, we have also computed the total volume of
pollution across the ten identified water pollutants. The volume of pollution is
reasonable in third scenario compared to other two scenarios.
It is observed from the study that the whole economy will be impacted due to
pollution control. The government can use a variety of regulatory and economic
instruments to reduce water pollution. Some contributions have been made in the
form of policy suggestion in this study from which it is evident that the price system
would also differ if instead of voluntary action or obeying a special law, each
industry undertakes to eliminate pollution at its expense and pays off an appropriate
proposed tax for pollution generation. From the study, it is apparent that the price of
the product will be more costly if sectors are taxed than that provided by the
pollution control schemes currently undertaken. Pollution control schemes should
be imposed on all the sectors producing water pollution, and penal measures must
be taken on the industries not implementing them. The size of penal measures in the
form of tax on a sector should be proportional to the amount of pollution generated
by that industry above MINAS.
Conventional national accounts focus on market transaction and use as indicators that reflect important factors in welfare generation, but they do not measure
welfare itself. However, new scarcities of natural resources now threaten the
sustained productivity of the economy while production and consumption activities
may impair environmental quality by overloading natural sinks with wastes and
pollutants. By not accounting for the private and social costs of the use of natural
resources (water resources) and the degradation of the environment due to water
pollution, conventional accounts may send wrong signals of progress to decision
makers who may then set society on a non-sustainable development path. Such
adjustments will give a more realistic indication of wealth creation and consumption of goods and services. Thus, environmentally adjusted domestic product (EDP)
must be done along with NDP annually.
Chapter 8 measures the EDP as well as welfare loss for India due to water
pollution. The current exercise has compiled part of the SEEA framework. Three
categories of adjustments to the national accounts have been proposed to reflect the
cost and benefits of human activity on the environment. These are (a) depletion of
natural capital, (b) environmental degradation, and (c) defensive expenditure. A
significant number of industries in India are producing water pollution above the
environmental standard by several times. These industries are discharging wastewaters on to land and water in an alarming proportion, degrading land and water
resources. This degradation is hazardous to the health, fertility of land, aquatic life,
etc. We have considered health hazards, damages to crops, and defensive expenditure to arrive at green GDP estimate in India for the year 20062007. The defensive
expenditure in this study is the cost of wastewater treatment, while damages to
10
241
crops are the loss of agricultural output due to soil erosion and land degradation
(replacement of soil nutrient cost and sedimentation cost). Health data used to
estimate the health impacts of inadequate water supply, sanitation, and hygiene
have been taken from two different sources (Parikh 2004; World Bank 2012).
We have applied two different estimates to calculate the environmentally
adjusted national income accounting. Case 1 is based on the estimates accounted
in Gundimeda et al. (2005, 2007) and Parikh (2004), while Case 2 is based on
World Bank study (2012). In addition, we also estimated the defensive expenditure
in this study. These two estimates differ in terms of (1) loss due to soil erosion,
(2) sedimentation as well as soil salinity, and (3) health cost.
The loss in terms of NDP is 3.56 % and 3.91 %, respectively, for Cases 1 and 2 as
discussed in Chap. 7(Tables 8.2 and 8.3). With the implementation of pollution
control policies, the loss in NDP is 3.53 % (Table 8.4) and 3.83 % (Table 8.5),
which are marginally less than the regular EDP estimates. The loss in terms of NDP
is further reduced when a flat pollution tax rate of 0.76 % is imposed in the
economy. It will be 3.50 % according to Case 1(Table 8.6) and 3.79 % for Case
2 (Table 8.7), which is further lower compared to actual GDP loss quoted as 3.56 %
and 3.91 %, respectively (Tables 8.2 and 8.3). It should be noted that where
environmental costs are growing faster than GDP, EDP growth rates will be
below that of GDP. Therefore, data on depletion, degradation, and defensive
expenditure should be available annually to allow work in this direction along
with GDP or NDP calculation. Based on our study considering only water
resources, we have seen that in India (20062007), NDP loss is in the range of
3.503.91 %. If other natural resources are accounted for, then the situation is
expected to be worse. Hence, there is a need for further research in this field.
Chapter 9 reviews a number of case studies across the different states in India. It
includes textile, pharmaceutical, and paint industry from West Bengal; textile and
dye industry in Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu; sugar industry in Maharashtra; pulp and
paper industry in Northern India; and tannery industry in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil
Nadu. From these case studies, we find that different industries have adopted
different measures depending on their capacity. There is a controversy regarding
the construction of CETP or ETP plant in India, and these case studies provide
further insight in this regard. The findings from the West Bengal studies reveal that
measures to control water pollutants by setting up environmental treatment plant
(ETP) in five industries have been successful. While the experiences from leather
industry in North and South India show similar results, they have used CETP to
control water pollution. On the other hand, a typical cluster of pulp and paper
industry in Northern India shows the feasibility of ETP compared to that of CETP.
In general, the performance of CETPs has been found to be very unsatisfactory
largely because of poor operation and maintenance. Therefore, the State Pollution
Control Boards should conduct regular and automatic monitoring of CETPs to
ensure proper operation and maintenance, failing which they should initiate action
against negligent agencies and willful defaulters (CPCB 2005). Achieving standards for treated effluent quality from CETPs are dependent on meeting the
designed criteria of inlet quality to CETPs that inter alia depends on effluent quality
242
from each industry (CPCB 2005). In addition, all CETPs and ETPs should adopt the
following measures: (a) to employ qualified and well-trained staff for operation and
maintenance; (b) to interlock manufacturing processes with ETP operation; (c) to
set up separate energy meters if not done; (d) to convert open anaerobic lagoons to
closed systems with gas recovery; and (e) to implement the guideline developed by
the CPCB for health and safety of worker in the industry.
In spite of data constraints and limitations as discussed in Chap. 4, the study
provides several interesting findings which should be taken into consideration by
academicians and policy makers. An important finding as discussed in Chap. 5
indicates that policy makers should note that the total pollution coefficients (direct
and indirect) should be considered as an alternative environmental management
strategies and not just direct pollution coefficient. Water pollution abatement
activities will have a significant impact on the Indian economy, leading to the
expansion of output and increasing prices. While the increase in output is beneficial
to the economy, consumers will be affected severely due to the price increase.
Moreover, the industries will likely lose their competitive advantage due to the
price rise of the outputs from both buyers and sellers end.
The pollution content in the foreign trade of India also reveals significant result.
The present researcher and others have already done some work in the area of trade
and environment focusing on air pollution not water pollution (Mukhopadhyay and
Chakraborty 2006). For an emerging economy like India, trade sector plays an
important role in generating GDP and employment. The current attempt signifies
that as our economy is more export oriented after 1991 policy reforms, the results
from Chap. 6 are of serious concern to us. Since exporting industries such as cotton
textiles are water pollution intensive, an emphasis on export growth will likely to
create more water pollution as evident from Chap. 7.
Another important finding from the estimates of EDP due to water pollution
shows a significant reduction in NDP due to the degradation of water resources
(Chap. 8). This study strongly suggests that if other natural resources could be
accounted, then NDP reduction would be greater.
10.1
Water Pollution Abatement Policy Options
10.1.1 Recent Initiatives by MOEF

The CAG report (2011) on Performance Audit of Water Pollution in India examines
the broad framework of policy, programs, institutions, and initiatives taken by
MoEF to address water pollution in India. They assess the risks to health and
environment and sustainability of measures to address water pollution in India.
On the basis of the findings, the report made several important conclusions which
are worth noting.
10.1
243
(a) Adequate assessment has not been made on the risks of polluted water to the
health of living organisms and the impact on environment; (b) adequate policies,
legislations, and programs have not been set up and effective institutions have not
been put into place for pollution prevention, treatment, and restoration of polluted
water in rivers, lakes, and groundwater and monitored efficiently and effectively;
(c) adequate mechanisms have not been put in place by the government to sustain
measures to tackle water pollution; (d) programs for the control of pollution have
not succeeded in reducing pollution levels in groundwater and surface water and
restoring water quality; and (e) funds were not utilized in an efficient manner to
further the aim of reduction of water pollution (CAG 2011).
On the basis of the assessment, recently they made several recommendations,
some of which can be briefly summarized as follows:
1. MoEF/states, in the policy on water pollution, need to consider prevention and
control of water pollution as well as ecological restoration of degraded water
bodies.
2. MoEF/CPCB in conjunction with Ministry of Water Resources and all the states
should initiate steps to draw up a comprehensive inventory of all rivers, lakes,
and groundwater sources in the country. It should also undertake a survey to list
all the important species associated with each river and lake in India. This
information should be available to the public.
3. To prepare planning for reduction of pollution of all rivers and lakes in the
country, MoEF should take into account the basin approach.
4. It is also recommended that MoEF needs to establish enforceable water quality
standards for lakes, rivers, and groundwater that would help protect human and
ecosystem health. Penalties should be levied for violations of water quality
standards. Further, MoEF, along with Ministry of Agriculture, should develop
standards for pollutants like nitrogen, phosphorus, etc., which arise from agricultural practices because the use of pesticides and fertilizers from agricultural
sources is one of the biggest nonpoint source of pollution.
5. There is a need to strictly enforce the provisions of the acts and review the
existing levels of penalty in various acts relating to control and prevention of
water pollution.
6. Legislations should be introduced by MoEF/states to specifically prevent water
pollution which takes into account pollution from both point and nonpoint
sources.
7. The Water Quality Assessment Authority at the central level and the Water
Quality Review Committee in the states should be revitalized and strengthened
so that it can act as a cross-sectoral nodal body for water pollution issues.
8. The role of civil society should be emphasized. States should involve citizens in
proposing and monitoring programs to control pollution. Citizens monitoring
committee and local level monitoring committees need to be constituted for
more effective implementation.
In response to these recommendations, MoEF in May 2011 constituted a committee to consider the recommendations/observations made in the report and
244
prepare a roadmap for implementation of the recommendations/observations

accepted. The committee consists of representatives from the CPCB, the Ministry
of Water Resources, the Ministry of Urban Development, and the CAG. The
committee proposed, inter alia, a time-bound action plan in this regard (CAG 2011).
10.1.2 Other Policy Suggestions

The prevention and mitigation of extensive levels of water pollution that cause
damage to human health and natural and productive assets at the local and regional
levels call for a proper set of abatement policies and policy implementation
instruments.
Policy options to address the water pollution problem fall into two general
categories: command and control (CACs) and market-based economic instruments
(EIs). Economic instruments make use of market mechanisms and provide one
important approach to address this challenge. They encompass a broad array of
policy tools, ranging from pollution taxes and marketable permits to depositrefund
systems and performance bonds. When economic instruments are applied on water
management and control or reduction of water pollutants, they increase the returns
from pollution abatement activities as evident from Chap. 7. Findings of the chapter
reveal that the implication of economic instruments like pollution tax leads to
expansion in output.
On the other hand, the application of economic instrument also results in the rise
in prices to achieve clean water. This encourages the design of new and improved
abatement technologies. In this connection we would like to mention that the
foremost attempt should be made to achieve clean water, and for that technological
innovation is a must. Increase in the research and development expenditure has to
be taken by the different industries and the government involving scientists, social
scientists, and technologists. Cost-effective new technology practices may have
demonstrated environmental benefits relative to current practice.
For example, the ideal method to abate diffuse chemical pollution of waterways
is to minimize or avoid the use of chemicals for industrial, agricultural, and
domestic purposes. Adapting practices such as organic farming and integrated
pest management could help protect waterways (Scheierling 1995). Chemical
contamination of waterways from industrial emissions can also be reduced by
cleaner production processes (UNEP 2002).
For proper water management, Indian industries should be encouraged to set up
water recovery or desalination plants to meet their demands. Consequently, the
industry has not only started adopting measures to minimize waste but also has been
looking for various means by which they can recover and recycle their wastewater.
Some industries, such as Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., have successfully experimented to recover and reuse water from their regenerate waste streams
using reverse osmosis and are in the process of setting up large-capacity plants
(GBP 2011b). This should be a lesson for other industries. The membrane processes
10.1
245
with their variety and flexibility have assumed a greater significance in water
recovery and reuse. Regarding effluent water treatment for reuse in industries, the
membrane technology is most suited for Indian conditions and is being rapidly
adopted. It is suggested that in the future, all process industries will have waterrecycling plants and coastal industries may adopt seawater desalination plants by
using either processed waste heat or reverse osmosis membranes. As a result
domestic water requirements would be met with existing resources, while industrial
requirements are supplemented by desalination. This has already been demonstrated in review of case studies in Chap. 9. We suggest in-depth research in this
area to be encouraged by the government and industries in collaboration with
research institutes and universities.
In addition, some economic instruments will actually raise revenue for governments, providing an important source of finance to priority sectors for pollution
abatement activities. The choice of the most appropriate economic instrument is
influenced by a wide range of factors including environmental laws already in
place, the power and technical capability of government bodies involved, and the
broad economic conditions within the country itself. It is, therefore, important to
recognize that there is no precise formula for deciding when to apply a particular
EI. However, there are certain patterns as to when and under what conditions EIs
can be successfully employed. For example, where emissions of pollutants of
concern are emitted from many different industrial sources, there are likely to be
widely varying costs to abate the pollution (Chap. 4). In these circumstances, there
are often large efficiency gains from imposing pollution taxes, as seen in Chap. 7 in
simulation exercise 2. In the second simulation exercise, spreading the taxes across
all sectors of the economy results in more tax benefits and less price increase when
compared to focusing taxes only on selected sectors (simulation 1).
Economic instruments that subsidize the technological improvement can benefit
water quality. Various subsidy options which can be thought of in this regard are
listed below:
(a) Grant-based subsidies: soft loans, direct funding, provision of hard currency at
below market rates
(b) Financing-based subsidies: soft loans, revolving funds, sectoral funds, green
funds, public interest rate subsidies or loan guarantees
(c) Tax-based subsidies: tax credits, tax breaks, tax exemptions, tax differentiation,
accelerated write-offs
(d) Risk-based subsidies: subsidized insurance or reinsurance, liability caps, public
sector indemnification
It is widely known that command and control measures do not provide necessary
incentives to polluters for the choice of least cost methods of pollution control.
However, a combination of factors seems to explain the current dominance of CAC
approaches throughout the world despite the benefits of EIs. These include a lack of
understanding of how EIs work to protect the environment and how to choose the
appropriate instrument; political interests that seek to minimize control costs via
246
regulation; and a preference for keeping the status quo. Opportunities for much
greater environmental and economic gains are, therefore, lost (UNEP 2004).
The Government of India has so far resorted to CAC measures for controlling
industrial pollution in India. The actual use of fiscal incentives in the country has
been rather limited, even though the need to employ economic and fiscal policy
instruments for the control of pollution and management of natural resources has
gained recognition since the 1990s (Datt et al. 2004). Fiscal instruments, such as
pollution taxes or marketable pollution permits, provide incentives to factories for
adopting the least cost pollution abatement technologies. There have been no
serious attempts in India to use such instruments for the abatement of industrial
pollution (Kumar and Managi 2009, 2010; Murty and Kumar 2011).
From the above analysis of the two approaches, we conclude that the use of
economic instruments together with existing command and control approaches will
bring great benefit. The efficiency improvements associated with economic instruments must nevertheless be balanced against the constraints posed by current
policies and institutional capabilities.
References
New Delhi
CPCB (2005) Performance status of common effluent treatment plants in India. Central Pollution
Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi
CWC (2010) Water and related statistics. Water Resource Information System Directorate,
Information System Organisation, Water Planning & Project Wing, Central Water Commission, New Delhi
Datt D, Garg SC, Kadekodi GK, Narang KK, Sharma D, Singh JP (2004) Environmental fiscal
reform in India: issues and some steps forward (draft). TERI, New Delhi
GBP (2011b) Review of wastewater reuse projects worldwide collation of selected international
case studies and experiences, Ganga river basin: environment management plan. Report Code:
012_GBP_IIT_EQP_SOA_01_Ver 1_Dec 2011, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. Retrieved from http://gangapedia.iitk.ac.in/sites/default/files/Second%20Set
%20of%20Report/012_EQP_Reuse.pdf
States project: estimating the value of agricultural cropland and pastureland in India. TERI
Press, New Delhi. Retrieved from http://www.gistadvisory.com/pdfs/GAISP_Monograph_2_
Final.pdf
Gundimeda H, Sukhdeva P, Sinha RK, Sanyal S (2007) Natural resource accounting for Indian
states illustrating the case of forest resources. Ecol Econ 61:635649
Kumar S, Managi S (2009) Economics of sustainable development: the case of India. Springer,
New York
Kumar S, Managi S (2010) Compensation for environmental services and intergovernmental fiscal
transfers: the case of India. Ecol Econ 68:30523059
Mukhopadhyay K, Chakraborty D (2006) Pollution haven and factor endowment revisited:
evidence from India. J Quant Econ 18(1):111132
References
247
Parikh J (2004) Environmentally sustainable development in India. Retrieved 22 Aug 2008, from
http://scid.stanford.edu/events/India2004/JParikh.pdf
Scheierling S (1995) Overcoming agricultural pollution of water: the challenge of integrating
agricultural and environmental policies in the European Union, Technical paper 269. World
UNEP (2002) Global environmental outlook 3(GEO-3) past, present and future perspectives.
United Nations Environment Programme Earthscan Publications Ltd., London
UNEP (2004) The use of economic instruments in environmental policy: opportunities and
challenges. UNEP/ETB/2003/9. United Nations Publications
World Bank (2012) An analysis of physical and monetary losses of environmental health and
natural resources in India by Mani M, Markandya A, Sagar A, Strukova E, The World Bank,
South Asia Region, Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change, October 2012 Policy
Research working Paper-WPS6219, The World Bank, Washington, DC
Appendix A: Extended Input Output Table

Including the Clean Water Sector for the Year
20062007 (Figures are in Lakh Rupees)

Global Issues in Water Policy 10, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-8929-5,
249
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Llivestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Minning and quarrying
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Tea, Coffee and beverages
Food products
Cotton textile
Miscellenous textile products
Paper andpaper products
Rubber products
Plastic products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Paints, varnishes and lacquers
Other chemicals
Other non metallic mineral
products
Iron and steel
Transport equipment
Other machinery
Construction
Electricity gas and watersupply
sectors
1.778
219359.318
756.220
22558.977
5955.982
728830.516
912264.068
9121421.796
64315.474
11498.504
1793941.160
3934.345
143.696
22.445
6838.583
8261.678
274.905
54270.064
7.915
0.671
57594.245
548.502
1645.660
9298.141
0.201
360.223
934.114
1068422.638
544.044
222.001
3946936.464
491597.077
6.762
2844.525
4.494
131.092
9.322
18073.390
1983.544
17679.949
10097.110
122297.824
57879.955
548.243
796162.390
0.000
722439.028
0.004
11.669
0.908
0.027
0.563
0.001
21.072
1617.572
364.757
49.425
3282.711
366.460
4285.374
0.490
6689.952
624.203
229704.926
101.473
24.654
746938.697
208360.749
77.504
43.766
25.327
21.400
0.000
66.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
799.000
0.000
1029112.000
770.000
21673.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
87671.000
0.000
482.000
486.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
127.000
0.000
0.000
375.100
7717.919
1042.206
27.607
1501.798
5125.026
1995.694
1807443.724
392.525
0.250
10319.071
0.000
1362.670
1675.521
168.158
184986.306
27.282
21847.814
799.529
189.213
150.071
109.512
481.553
1042.942
1267.703
79.890
1215.005
1794.484
2511.616
1585.663
109.099
71.645
157.827
11368.723
1078.751
478.284
6856.000
7401.913
0.040
98693.465
0.315
42.371
51.959
526.141
0.269
0.000
92.051
246158.000
0.005
0.000
0.036
0.306
0.000
11466.765
0.001
0.000
47894.978
92386.017
6893.039
0.372
0.000
0.019
0.000
159517.450
0.003
0.001
193.670
25.664
0.000
9975.053
0.000
0.000
Extended inputoutput table (figures are in lakh Rs.) (including the Clean Water sector) for the years 20062007
2.000
257009.000
323.000
39406.000
21371.000
30402.000
130441.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
11356.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.000
84.000
30089.000
6496.000
0.000
9313.000
4.000
42221.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
293837.000
0.000
0.000
7296.694
449730.010
2790.383
5716.080
6737.518
379447.791
130945.206
42.578
65.521
0.009
50.154
0.033
25867.819
89496.402
50.090
45.242
138.363
140.347
34.783
48.802
3337.905
177.812
4929.610
2713.735
71.235
14880.106
1777.105
176669.155
11569.505
1983.088
8.234
274.480
1084.490
184240.751
500.231
68812.344
574.432
100529.303
12149.817
6418.247
9087.149
98932.532
8047.961
16892.652
1945377.757
2996.481
442.260
875.566
1733.676
19.425
69185.301
1550.144
1088.956
2516.315
2.540
0.229
2024.402
3325.035
15378.903
19313.804
0.015
0.010
26701.627
60418.866
12335.484
1594.612
13.644
2.180
52.925
1399.570
0.562
286.328
71.335
12500.413
265.145
13.689
340.842
2221.534
22914.762
131669.938
2106892.951
4210.949
2546.851
1440.226
6389.632
260.277
2438.008
418603.465
119.920
12194.193
538.638
136.605
1712.519
2719.898
24479.799
11490.205
9.985
17.965
29204.313
47745.970
11682.899
6926.030
562.797
101.570
191.084
162074.036
228.142
33.736
298.780
69743.988
50.628
17.638
2053.115
34129.593
90596.492
189660.084
749528.313
2952.922
547.288
473.800
8729.265
1063.968
643201.212
1458.782
600900.394
573467.511
52.551
774.777
21112.925
33781.863
24754.561
148574.335
196.171
180.259
220775.460
90899.948
46762.086
67177.417
223.449
3981.154
474.048
237982.620
61.851
5677.891
10
276.093
116320.150
54.558
268.148
6075.072
215990.682
163420.866
4259271.218
358794.923
1378683.568
269203.967
471744.132
11572.517
16468.025
660805.405
368603.098
28814.286
1032268.051
223.963
118.677
16302.553
25965.202
111524.097
279053.586
29.300
253.824
106030.943
213236.843
86746.145
47697.339
50695.011
6894.618
1455.251
105337.692
1619.884
1438.260
11
250
Appendix A: Extended Input Output Table Including the Clean Water Sector for. . .
37 Transport services and

communication
38 Other services
39 Clean water
Total Input
NIT
Total Input+NIT
Gross Value Added
Other Gross Value Added
Total
217383.000
822532.000
100283.05
22392218.18 3729645.84 2181101.00
-3561562.56 -566608.74
-2197.00
18830655.61 3163037.10 2178904.00
38798540.85 12596817.37 12259726.00
20856.91
57629196.46 15759854.47 14438630.00
2216063.573 416441.890
1640406.325 363419.510
1360251.277
42593.79
3790526.04
32914.06
3823440.10
4765383.74
13049.96
8588823.84
359774.585
810327.604
157504.37
3293810.34
158765.71
3452576.05
649436.68
50295.53
4102012.73
165152.000 162928.783 62214.028
170524.000 369533.518
23087.47
811905.29 1208034.00 2104135.91
-202611.83 90587.00
156051.68
609293.46 1298621.00 2260187.59
3406010.54 3338194.48 6926717.46
7630.07
4015304.00 4636815.48 9186905.05
56470.588
67258.798
955149.957
39588.41
4135990.60
85725.45
4221716.05
825543.97
12641.68
5047260.01
155890.324
934949.426
209368.87
5605744.82
330128.74
5935873.55
2560810.25
56765.44
8496683.80
3200769.563
3124.10
14604516.54
199884.75
14804401.30
2044283.49
706.27
16848684.79
798478.252 990489.032
251
24
25
26
23
22
19
20
21
18
17
16
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Tea, coffee, and
beverages
Food products
Cotton textile
products
Wood and wood
products
Paper and paper
products
Leather and leather
products
Rubber products
Plastic products
products
Inorganic heavy
chemicals
Organic heavy
chemicals
Fertilizers
Pesticides
lacquers
Sectors
29.594
14.524
37,499.899
23,799.125
48,484.584
679.801
22,071.514
114,844.606
1,211.065
19,462.691
13,084.856
6,286.757
875,790.814
237,170.837
5,558.510
16,488.546
1,098.851
1,391,570.277
217.297
862.928
73.843
5,540.972
1,261.903
132.708
168.132
6.095
12
6.072
294.941
34,933.402
256,443.285
110,433.523
2,680.971
106,699.877
144,116.738
3,810.309
59,708.539
15,355.005
1,522.218
176,189.830
593,161.692
12,379.298
72,504.249
106.532
184,441.873
0.083
32,412.628
0.001
9,328.142
5,773.430
0.593
14.620
401.898
13
1.129
0.181
1,516.412
4,361.042
1,303.852
32.176
1,362.399
3,437.089
9.863
3,147.437
756.137
220.344
488.487
12,540.515
7,594.424
209.280
152.007
128,164.050
11.426
27.598
0.165
3,113.208
655.089
113.628
10.647
17.485
14
5.859
114.644
28,634.785
63,175.045
43,640.614
18,289.845
122,311.460
131,007.342
66,743.237
63,926.305
43,668.893
2,133.527
1,777,105.191
793,676.652
34,861.643
377,448.937
514.858
319,855.660
17.196
23,636.417
5.875
6,107.696
29,806.367
8.250
64.534
62.485
15
689.246
8,316.646
4,019.446
50,255.047
8,770.628
10,567.089
33,677.435
13,897.250
1,104.435
31,170.305
35,060.307
982.705
3,583.855
979.696
4,497.510
3,786.180
785.492
389,508.595
2.159
8,105.967
1.006
8,144.435
791.037
111.575
73.173
3,193.329
16
4,037.014
515.724
4,544.324
8,491.093
1,186.567
8,024.727
2,662.974
79,075.105
15.491
276,817.278
5.296
944.622
1,044.107
8.591
16.468
53.343
18
3.782
75.271
63,280.522
35,329.584
143,316.950
1,922.596
68,831.814
99,296.748
353.150
1.379
5.285
20,738.447
1,385.697
1,948.164
2,943.396
14,534.826
18,553.017
431,270.022
1,539,008.827 4,673.946
94,950.769
11,192.833
3,350.220
2,288.652
3,566.965
11,535.587
23,686.762
249,251.658
396.590
510.202
242.226
58,194.668
5,718.929
276.457
123.850
89.122
17
6,192.946
372.201
25,915.160
39,105.147
139,586.403
152,750.450
35,455.579
87,838.601
45,566.042
10,422.579
11,220.127
827.215
16,808.422
6,254.061
10,315.425
36,111.119
529.859
343,940.968
0.240
37,463.265
0.042
7,357.568
53,610.298
8.898
46.788
164.536
19
65.682
2,186.595
39,959.759
290,820.150
107,970.613
14,218.392
805,352.755
94,617.566
14,450.048
62,598.607
18,167.978
4,663.085
5,851.935
4,856.425
2,595.428
11,541.573
6,324.793
108,241.008
66.333
13,654.366
16.832
7,420.043
11,743.061
3,078.796
409.580
3,296.117
20
94.669
3,621.128
4,851.217
30,150.515
244,890.569
1,525.093
26,984.619
1,020,990.973
139.023
13,980.208
9,727.585
853.772
121.207
226.186
1,614.455
2,028.196
1,976.692
907.860
1.507
839.199
0.018
219,112.426
18,754,636.659
513.721
99.523
259.560
21
69,110.335
38,576.186
17,900.774
456,444.493
414,637.204
11,789.509
52,250.116
276,603.786
9,038.943
46,200.538
21,651.413
15,539.840
1,397.237
8,611.815
5,578.382
7,014.824
16,543.787
7,593.912
61.158
8,193.284
0.369
82,854.036
178,234.555
10,465.782
6,277.974
17,712.108
22
252
27 Other chemicals
28 Synthetic fibers, resin
29 Other nonmetallic mineral products
30 Iron and steel
31 Machinery and metal
products
35 Construction
36 Electricity gas and water
supply
communication
38 Other services
39 Clean water
Total input
NIT
Total Input + NIT
Gross value added
Other gross value added
Total
19,946.811
128,007.776
198.06
385,181.07
10,473.77
395,654.84
209,836.24
340.82
605,491.08
1,095,042.309 343,182.985
1,159,555.576
3,428,551.22
5,717,193.24
143,745.73
5,860,938.98
1,889,902.37
2,143,202.86
7,750,841.35
5,125,327.49
3,906,250.74
198,892.05
4,105,142.78
1,020,184.70
881,337.191
254.553
122.839
482.183
2,624.713
34,726.542
1,914.324
8.686
16,137.004
45,727.637
150,152.706
471.027
3.037
9,330.072
104,529.114
376,137.698
363.676
8,502.837
503.174
76,848.299
243.879
92,278.864
20,228.157
84.770
590.144
76,256.783
490,475.962
986.237
21,254.834
34,778.248
157.850
1,979,455.057
81,960.59
8,125,039.25
69,063.85
8,194,103.10
3,062,744.17
2,517.79
11,256,847.26
752,635.294
16,903.172
2,373.782
97,202.894
254,615.235
166,747.625
8,020.379
381,332.412
150,493.770
365,930.793
2,505.520
448,506.495
28,051.419
282.651
30,052.683
64,550.746
160,356.316
15,925.023
37,954.062
180,955.078
20,161.174
7,834.181
527,801.460
5,349.82
1,194,335.15 3,939,226.02
63,015.06
428,301.92
1,257,350.21 4,367,527.94
949,014.87
1,560,852.10
2,951.65
2,206,365.08 5,928,380.04
257,038.935
107,186.213
28,432.817
6,471.695
8,701.135
7,540.705
28,137.455
50,447.315
55,613.195
9,328.245
11,416.751
1,946.139
340,549.975
2,643.51
1,503,173.92
55,290.08
1,558,464.00
654,120.81
1,727.37
2,212,584.80
131,526.840
5,793.507
1,248.395
14,896.342
6,894.828
22,521.096
3,739.702
26,360.672
51,724.834
12,613.494
1,807.330
417,962.751
6,134.46
2,967,441.88
175,735.09
3,143,176.97
839,236.10
2,760.67
3,982,413.07
200,063.908
31,193.337
30,534.330
11,870.035
14,657.896
74,071.850
97,923.499
126,570.459
71,464.530
819,880.028
3,385.317
5,550,095.80
4,109,490.55
384,884.73
4,494,375.28
1,055,720.53
474,932.401
236,578.507
31,666.996
5,170.989
29,478.720
15,825.536
134,378.791
58,017.098
120,514.025
892,918.824
15,050.38
22,825,117.29
1,556,800.90
24,381,918.19
4,922,062.02
11,311.86
29,303,980.20
746,419.881
928.245
135.209
11,941.257
194,928.938
359,386.918
2,330.026
48,927.143
356,917.399
214,187.630
1,006,701.462 6,075.871
5,141.100
6,790.764
465,922.146
2,167.85
3,094,748.09
276,034.44
3,370,782.53
1,033,796.21
1,391.08
4,404,578.74
224,926.257
4,236.748
70.704
15,957.449
31,196.011
171,846.507
7,973.127
61,505.308
207,460.115
106,695.935
16,675.419
253
27
28
29
23
24
25
26
22
19
20
21
16
17
18
11
12
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Tea, coffee, and
beverages
Food products
Cotton textile
products
Leather and leather
products
Rubber products
Plastic products
products
Inorganic heavy
chemicals
Fertilizers
Pesticides
lacquers
Other chemicals
products
Sectors
251,261.449
109,755.202
4,364.194
474,439.774
17,004.317
57,532.044
19,020.379
307,588.477
7,497.780
54,273.863
156,193.629
19,559.319
43,548.238
5,692.118
14,208.759
1,481.234
11,539.316
4,518.326
6,065.339
14,467.260
36,772.081
157.412
6,766.978
1.370
27,452.311
70,373.443
7,489.499
7,398.948
16,827.016
23
48,356.830
662.529
703.579
221,552.093
381,744.510
5,895.570
256.025
669,118.849
167.008
22,792.635
777,444.252
16,208.444
527.157
133.871
2,682.547
4.235
3.890
2,028.843
3,308.808
569.801
6,938.314
7.979
70.693
0.057
32,309.862
547,330.805
646.515
757.927
1,113.258
24
50,177.765
4,816.752
1,060.169
117,113.672
2,408.208
176,134.160
2,957.621
108,641.168
1,039.318
6,857.353
28,141.621
9,862.241
4,885.307
395.713
3,502.828
62.843
40.101
1,638.663
2,016.242
5,882.401
907.366
733.602
1,811.726
231.192
2,047.398
9,556.784
1,347.681
590.274
1,867.369
25
350,880.513
93,892.342
8,658.941
160,564.179
198.282
8,196.270
105,518.166
288,424.623
3,812.216
47,392.805
64,792.181
22,656.431
12,170.147
3,139.855
8,737.455
331.619
251.871
3,542.306
5,381.779
11,119.052
8,703.002
561.957
2,391.490
184.678
15,199.302
49,522.516
3,379.416
8,262.251
5,206.488
26
675,301.421
2,935.654
393.924
11,347.680
232,362.005
10,805.410
35,640.076
186,937.645
10,273.655
18,698.124
201.570
7,498.369
5,274.514
15,544.213
2,982.863
3,473.911
13,556.255
6,501.453
5.954
15,107.663
0.105
1,585.448
48,028.467
3,095.371
395.983
3,442.409
28
3,287,113.364 347,716.419
77,929.897
470,257.443
12,141.974
1,496.563
1,427,803.660
1,059.250
31,524.478
18,674.250
641,875.118
7,876.989
322,340.886
285,668.693
142,870.308
123,676.799
3,585.189
108,871.118
8,008.363
2,649.252
32,349.202
40,287.437
179,833.758
564,221.363
18,504.652
37,511.550
4,745.606
24,479.775
217,793.869
54,515.072
57,513.741
14,605.600
27
43,406.032
27,919.350
788,172.252
17,746.654
325.193
2,470.295
42,640.050
93,521.337
2,697.144
204,370.994
622,627.176
63,145.686
93,512.618
849.927
1,970.667
7,090.635
5,214.595
8,400.078
13,358.618
1,975.313
7,606.155
37.620
861.905
9.688
307,678.532
976,393.642
512.825
235.795
988.891
29
30,613.242
18,117.005
61,293.455
12,602.905
20.053
5,963.693
43,350.916
126,594.502
8,615.625
45,710.887
742,537.740
20,882.163
23,114.848
2,605.188
172.668
422.460
1,014.824
2,671.557
3,737.972
79.618
2,336.740
0.190
144.219
0.269
2,134,795.926
1,011,172.611
462.808
8.963
1,821.165
30
103,098.518
135,875.902
89,860.635
56,030.861
97.876
2,662.889
81,276.014
328,306.790
94,998.833
250,922.091
494,424.904
143,935.694
107,566.404
7,323.201
8,811.623
2,642.373
12,493.897
8,999.349
35,338.478
7,586.125
7,768.864
1,592.248
6,281.244
537.565
887,348.863
881,568.570
7,923.255
576.118
3,915.653
31
211,900.960
709,575.999
318,290.110
106,128.558
66.677
6,170.804
135,315.096
223,170.726
69,068.995
740,773.620
326,035.609
149,733.959
197,739.873
27,731.523
2,184.163
1,463.282
52,045.172
16,153.523
48,824.921
2,256.818
6,989.668
90.667
9,459.912
81.844
47,889.785
135,896.374
712.391
68.106
852.062
32
70,392.710
174,414.797
30,199.117
27,135.475
41.633
45.723
98,318.333
24,730.270
234,042.097
140,688.985
133,628.762
40,304.680
30,689.982
51,217.650
486.395
7,319.514
11,539.163
4,814.161
6,776.463
1,006.693
5,536.785
0.001
6,082.298
0.001
27,578.474
24,590.954
22.558
157.389
150.732
33
254
30 Iron and steel

31 Machinery and metal
products
35 Construction
36 Electricity gas and water
supply
communication
38 Other services
39 Clean water
Total input
NIT
Total input + NIT
Gross value added
Total
3,277.757
159.234
1,254.717
45,860.026
78,768.171
295,841.257
453,232.448
2,984.982
14.375
16,704.859
20,229.237
141,420.198
156,951.629
383,210.604
9,561.58
2,528,440.25
252,985.61
2,781,425.87
931,454.71
7,128.96
3,712,880.58
34,715.122
1,389.118
76.202
4,011.065
4,800.546
24,227.893
3,733.530
19,586.279
130,088.303
17,868.19
3,627,404.29 769,355.60
227,968.73
71,617.00
3,855,373.02 840,972.60
924,721.40
333,718.50
14,338.33
4,780,094.42 1,174,691.09
335.446
5,338.347
3,189.375
50,484.919
284,250.272
12,262.95
1,863,452.74
180,094.40
2,043,547.14
613,320.99
6,254.11
2,656,868.13
124,677.296
5,505.356
144.575
15,339.268
10,066.287
60,089.691
15,578.223
54,729.643
1,485,300.200
191,722.93
10,850,942.15
1,038,265.57
11,889,207.72
4,594,027.04
68,145.00
16,483,234.76
746,366.932
61,682.207
990.071
132,743.295
143,090.982
280,274.628
45,043.037
205,419.582
6,263,217.50
441,548.34
6,704,765.84
3,037,768.93
2,719,598.16
281,570.65
3,001,168.80
1,017,877.39
4,019,046.19 9,742,534.77
917,186.846
718,097.000
3,723.952
726.432
42,428.831
468,012.452
630,284.704
54,989.575
92,028.041
305,145.261
171,508.519
8,107.931
29.847
9,151.366
13,651.775
47,158.516
2,630.627
31,353.746
1,147,722.462
125,528.415
327,766.758
659,957.012
746,205.493
8,893,528.429
26,441.111
431,887.225
611,915.290
463,228.551
707,369.377
1,610,045.914
220,063.779
151,744.100
392,408.939
3,012,791.381
123,702.80
18,692,293.94
985,532.71
19,677,826.65
6,262,365.17
92,975.02
25,940,191.82
30,273,319.19
2,893,927.25
33,167,246.45
4,263,980.32
10,745,677.50
1,094,534.14
11,840,211.63
3,345,666.88
34,583,930.99 37,431,226.76 15,185,878.51
24,238,943.81
2,209,503.42
26,448,447.23
8,135,483.76
3,543,185.343 3,718,209.920 2,449,841.124
1,788,484.578 1,567,800.452 2,760,637.745 593,292.273
122,551.607
77,163.883
26,299.566
92,808.346
1,379,352.751
3,597,817.113 4,771,565.560 3,589,508.501 1,571,927.544

4,294,160.498 7,579,447.479 6,231,291.226 1,897,072.654
255
30
27
28
29
22
23
24
25
26
19
20
21
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Food products
Cotton textile
products
Leather and leather
products
Rubber products
Plastic products
products
Fertilizers
Pesticides
lacquers
Other chemicals
products
Iron and steel
Sectors
320,464.890
40,916.539
168,838.588
29,054.494
25,640.072
18,196.402
71.929
283.682
21,324.095
17,284.547
183,253.498
57,552.843
46,385.629
50,918.812
12,493.769
12,227.388
14,387.775
3,184.697
22,600.731
1,083.905
19,004.293
476,661.144
1,680.278
1,443.337
356.563
2,803.200
7,599.796
14,762.389
3,843.946
9,196.999
34
10,272,678.681
426.645
240.125
9,570,373.288
345.440
275.727
9,090.681
2,296.014
1,080,483.333
7,857.550
307.923
3,355,402.843
924,812.898
87,860.328
100.686
1,066,039.796
365,912.572
100.132
601,505.144
34.134
2,365.658
3,729,783.599
107.693
74.648
33.134
131.193
274.022
100.383
87,987.897
4,392.564
35
18,916.742
60,072.711
2,577.659
1,324.692
10,049.297
8,451.069
1,495.108
3,571.034
1,054.570
3,815.799
2,725.386
1,658,558.481
6,340.217
69,113.138
442.353
4,362.946
50,865.558
456.574
121.738
154.965
1,696,075.946
375,521.057
884.058
629.500
785.385
1,210.380
910.334
2,618.979
222.344
2,262.325
36
1,959.000
10,107.000
1,184.000
63,179.000
1,178.000
0.000
0.000
3,612.000
310,432.000
1,638,388.000
401,320.000
12,678,247.000
9,770.000
510,058.000
5,186.000
959,630.000
40.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4,164.000
11.000
0.000
18,469.000
127.000
1,150.000
6,825.000
5,752.000
551.000
66,747.000
37
200,503.549
2,470,901.951
48,938.875
32,997.964
39,712.706
97,822.187
6,639.286
4,447.775
11,029.889
40,544.192
72,465.641
944,386.830
136,558.989
994,416.787
6,100.951
3,485,134.325
176,643.826
537,636.154
756,121.594
15,941.843
19,167.142
35,153.813
392,574.488
479,262.162
632,167.893
964,075.266
23,132.111
13,944.090
43,744.392
81,196.637
38
2,629,273.35
39 Clean water
256
38
39
37
32
33
34
35
36
31
Machinery and metal

products
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
supply
communication
Other services
Clean water
Total input
NIT
Total input + NIT
Gross value added
Total
9,444,405.034
56,193,334.98
2,467,927.18
58,661,262.16
31,961,741.07
90,623,003.23
8,107,606.26
489,649.91
8,597,256.17
3,506,342.62
12,103,598.80
5,373,350.319
2,060,272.456
29,055.479
710,733.559
3,790,499.949
1,264,353.224
2,349,270.232
1,201,728.218
832,682.670
371,898.864
10,005.800
3,359,668.228
91,869.658
75,675.995
580,560.601
2,237,701.150
560,046.32
14,518,792.90
1,792,890.01
12,725,902.90
6,542,631.10
392,928.50
19,268,534.00
1,157,715.312
629,587.215
20,636.162
344,013.692
496,904.734
5,391,854.467
254,789.825
72,472,274.78
38,811,612.00
2,687,900.00
41,499,512.00
30,972,762.78
7,728,031.000
6,016,714.000
1,381,860.000
2,059,967.000
1,248,464.000
1,798,697.000
1,132,523.000
747,270.000
213,520,794.68
44,867,302.26
1,459,992.05
46,327,294.31
167,193,500.37
17,186,712.087
6,750,682.539
1,333,466.362
351,880.898
1,870,686.916
3,492,218.604
700,414.311
417,877.237
2,909,919.86
6,829,255.91
3,919,336.05
3,919,336.05
1,290,062.70
257
24
25
23
22
19
20
21
18
17
16
15
11
12
13
14
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
Agriculture
Other agriculture
Milk and milk
products
Livestock
Fishing
Coal and lignite
Sugar
Oil and vanaspati
Tea, coffee, and
beverages
Food products
Cotton textile
Jute hemp mesta
textile
products
Wood and wood
products
Paper and paper
products
Leather and leather
products
Rubber products
Plastic products
products
Inorganic heavy
chemicals
Organic heavy
chemicals
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Sectors
5,245,080.42
1,076,087.09
4,799,644.58
4,558,495.74
2,397,686.07
4,208,635.80
26,608,415.20
702,470.80
4,705,065.04
2,251,523.08
1,041,439.26
2,881,908.79
2,941,837.35
1,819,405.49
464,380.08
4,668,943.84
747,979.00
5,724,427.48
27,741,641.05
1,872,759.73
1,654,330.01
1,340,880.80
22,376,698.53
10,486,982.61
1,985,875.00
IIUSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
391,462.00
626,549.00
5,991,164.00
972,696.00
1,049,235.00
217,040.00
4,152,444.00
12,579,254.00
3,726,087.00
3,029,794.00
98,548.00
3,165,944.00
2,620,591.00
29,264.00
96,490.00
2,148,026.00
3,913,652.00
6,491,045.00
33,366,015.00
5,115,590.00
12,180,376.00
PFCE
0.00
213.00
12,809.00
1,189.00
17,148.00
34,450.00
421,402.00
1.00
477,334.00
59,815.00
328,493.00
361,492.00
0.00
0.00
25.00
83,746.00
0.00
6,326.00
27,381.00
0.00
0.00
36,541.00
341,400.00
61.00
256,404.00
GFCE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
522,429.00
286,368.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
345,428.00
41,359.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
210,053.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GFCF
95,527.00
38,157.00
337,796.00
977,915.00
210,168.00
308,186.00
2,883,377.00
4,281.00
521,446.00
702,909.00
337,578.00
276,160.00
96,846.00
149,907.00
38,186.00
215,174.00
10,142.00
81,805.00
98,011.00
557,503.00
170,165.00
412,611.00
551,057.00
715,826.00
15,160.00
CIS
3,040.00
235,307.00
2,115,956.00
315,738.00
694,370.00
507,058.00
2,765,552.00
709,176.00
251,875.00
136,065.00
5,696,111.00
1,450,727.00
1,196,535.00
690,447.00
35,323.00
279,838.00
651,617.00
16,434.00
5,011,045.00
186,911.00
568,142.00
274,922.00
1,856,444.00
350,911.00
835.00
EXP
372,499.00
175,073.00
2,877,733.00
1,448,759.00
250,850.00
421,151.00
3,599,176.00
167,478.00
1,076,575.00
100,597.00
340,577.00
700,857.00
210,464.00
564,226.00
30,971.00
34,875.00
15,025.00
1,057,831.00
23,591,641.00
663,187.00
1,259,029.00
59,316.00
862,418.00
909,516.00
20.00
Less IMP
464,986.00
98,604.00
1,086,764.00
153,917.00
1,584,727.00
1,341,460.00
2,695,565.00
1,510,114.00
1,223,315.00
45,158.00
10,215,408.00
13,966,776.00
4,809,004.00
3,305,922.00
141,111.00
3,919,880.00
3,267,325.00
1,087,612.00
18,554,736.00
2,229,253.00
3,392,930.00
7,155,803.00
35,252,498.00
5,272,872.00
12,452,755.00
TFUSE
4,780,094.42
1,174,691.09
3,712,880.58
4,404,578.74
3,982,413.07
5,550,095.80
29,303,980.20
2,212,584.80
5,928,380.04
2,206,365.08
11,256,847.26
16,848,684.79
7,750,841.35
5,125,327.49
605,491.08
8,588,823.84
4,015,304.00
4,636,815.48
9,186,905.05
4,102,012.73
5,047,260.01
8,496,683.80
57,629,196.53
15,759,854.61
14,438,630.00
Total
258

lacquers
Other chemicals
Other nonmetallic
mineral products
Iron and steel
Machinery and metal
products
Transport equipment
Other machineries
Construction
Electricity gas and
water supply
communication
Other services
Clean water
Total input
NIT
Total input + NIT
Gross value added
Other gross value
added
Total
73,319,514.68
396,696,119.28
396,696,119.28
15,073,441.83
15,073,441.83
379,006,297.96
411,769,561.11
38,378,927.78
16,904,189.76
4,550,087.51
9,070,486.80
14,253,636.23
16,005,262.00
24,732,089.82
27,105,538.99
9,746,844.76
4,923,330.19
11,137,869.77
2,265,748.13
34,798,664.00
42,105,874.00
42,105,874.00
0.00
0.00
394,079,739.79
0.00
1,495,736.00
438,829.00
264,943.00
157,557.00
738,351.00
1,100,468.00
0.00
198,475.00
446,211.00
0.00
410.00
0.00
81,852,565.00
227,021,331.00
227,021,331.00
25,730,354.00
3,884,440.00
1,784,930.00
1,493,171.00
2,174,614.00
2,162,804.00
0.00
1,650,270.00
4,202,981.00
0.00
64,734.00
59,202.00
0.00
0.00
4,717,571.00
130,553,263.00
130,553,263.00
2,199,789.00
14,556,786.00
9,158,257.00
9,299,189.00
73,456,402.00
0.00
1,902,962.00
13,819,246.00
0.00
0.00
37,424.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9,462,353.00
9,462,353.00
0.00
3,787,607.00
77,471.00
1,078,705.00
0.00
0.00
43,409.00
766,722.00
2,393,534.00
259,314.00
238,846.00
501,402.00
0.00
0.00
26,420,292.00
91,506,422.00
91,506,422.00
5,435,510.00
4,398,425.00
2,601,398.00
16,790,354.00
0.00
0.00
2,677,797.00
4,359,980.00
1,467,769.00
781,281.00
475,196.00
98,041.00
0.00
0.00
7,587,812.00
106,569,503.00
106,569,503.00
768,042.00
6,539,050.00
3,251,208.00
25,785,864.00
0.00
0.00
3,329,248.00
13,316,301.00
1,774,105.00
1,426,251.00
1,734,253.00
267,525.00
0.00
0.00
140,201,280.00
0.00
394,079,740.00
34,093,347.00
20,527,037.00
10,635,791.00
3,033,112.00
76,369,367.00
3,263,272.00
1,208,102.00
7,478,392.00
6,736,390.00
904,284.00
1,395,335.00
391,120.00
411,769,561.11
15,073,441.83
213,520,794.68
3,025,929.30
790,775,859.28
72,472,274.78
37,431,226.76
15,185,878.51
12,103,598.80
90,623,003.23
19,268,534.00
25,940,191.82
34,583,930.99
16,483,234.76
4,019,046.19
9,742,534.77
2,656,868.13
PFCE private final consumption exp., GFCE govt. final consumption exp., GFCF gross fixed capital formation, CIS change in stock, EXP exports, Less IMP
imports, TFUSE total final use
38
39
37
32
33
34
35
36
30
31
27
28
29
26
259

(Global Issues in Water Policy 10) Debesh Chakraborty, Kakali Mukhopadhyay (auth.)-Water Pollution and Abatement Policy in India_ A Study from an Economic Perspective-Springer Netherlands (2014).pdf

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

(Global Issues in Water Policy 10) Debesh Chakraborty, Kakali Mukhopadhyay (auth.)-Water Pollution and Abatement Policy in India_ A Study from an Economic Perspective-Springer Netherlands (2014).pdf

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Global Issues in Water Policy 10

Water Pollution and Abatement Policy in India

GLOBAL ISSUES IN WATER POLICY

For further volumes:

Debesh Chakraborty Kakali Mukhopadhyay

Water Pollution and

UK, Oulu University in Finland, and the Department of Agricultural Economics,

The current book attempts to develop an inputoutput model to link water

ThiS is a FM Blank Page

ThiS is a FM Blank Page

Status of Water Pollution in India and Other Countries of Asia . . .

Data Sources and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Experiment with Models: Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Estimation of Water Pollution Content in Indias

Simulation Exercises on Water Pollution Abatement Policies . . . .

Review of the Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A: Extended Input Output Table Including the Clean

The environmental Kuznets curve: a developmentenvironment

ThiS is a FM Blank Page

Water resources of India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Water pollution from coffee processing

Operating cost of effluent treatment plant of HLL (Rs.) . . . . . . . . . 84

Total coefficients of BOD and COD for selected sectors (thousand

List of sectors classified based on percentage growth

Determination of WQI of treated wastewater, Eastern

Values of IRR, BCR, and PBP for five effluent treatment

Environment and Development

The international conference held in Sweden in 1972 emphasized strongly the

Stages of economic development

Fig. 1.1 The environmental Kuznets curve: a developmentenvironment relationship (Source:

1.2 Water Pollution and Development

developing countries can also achieve such environmental quality improvements

Water Pollution and Development

Water, an abiotic component of our environment, plays an indispensable role in our

minerals, sediments of solid wastes, suspended solids, bacteria, toxic chemicals,

1.2 Water Pollution and Development

known collectively as disinfection by-products (International Agency for Research

1.3 Water Pollution in India

Water Pollution in India

Increased population, rapid industrialization, and unplanned urban growth in India

1.4 Water Resources of India

Water Resources of India

Water Resources: Availability and Consumption

Table 1.1 Water resources of India

Freshwater Scenario in India

1.4 Water Resources of India

Water Consumption in Indian Agriculture

Water Consumption by Industries

Industrialization and infrastructure growth are accelerating water consumption and

Steel- and electricity-dependent industries are expected to grow in the coming

Overuse and Misuse of Water Resources

A Brief Literature Review

1.6 A Brief Literature Review

wastewater-dependent livelihoods and, on the other hand, protect degradation of

1.6 A Brief Literature Review

The objective of the book is to:

1.8 Arrangement of the Chapters

Arrangement of the Chapters

Chapter 9 reviews a number of case studies on various industries conducted

GOI (20102011) Statistical appendix: economic survey 201011. Government of India

Status of Water Pollution in India and Other

During the last 50 years or more, increasing population, industrialization, and

D. Chakraborty and K. Mukhopadhyay, Water Pollution and Abatement Policy in India,